Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Wareham Extension) Bill [Lords].

Read a Second time, and committed.

Public Works Facilities Scheme (Great Western Railway) Bill.

Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

ALIENS (NATURALISATION).

Address for
Return showing (1) Particulars of all Aliens to whom certificates of naturalisation have been issued and whose oaths of allegiance have, during the year ended the 31st day of December, 1930, been registered at the Home Office; (2) Information as to any Aliens who have during the same period obtained acts of naturalisation from the legislature; and (3) Particulars of cases in which certificates of naturalisation have been revoked during the same period (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 136, of Session 1929–30)."—[Mr. Short.]

Oral Answers to Questions — RENUNCIATION OF WAR (TREATY).

Mr. DAY: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there are yet any nations who have not acceded to the Kellogg Pact as signed at Paris on 27th August, 1928?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Arthur Henderson): Only six States, namely, Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Ecuador, San Salvador and Uruguay, out of the 66 which were invited by the Government of the United States to accede to the Treaty for the Renunciation of War, have not yet done so. In the case of Bolivia, although on the 11th of October,
1928, the Cabinet Council passed a resolution accepting the Treaty, and the United States Government were informed accordingly, it appears that this adherence was subject to the approval of the Bolivian Congress, which has not yet been given.

Mr. DAY: Are efforts being made to obtain the adherence of the six Powers which have refrained from acceding to the Kellogg Pact?

Mr. HENDERSON: I think not. I have not seen any.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMAN-SOVIET AGREEMENTS.

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make any statement concerning the renewal of the German-Soviet Treaty?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: The Commissariat for Foreign Affairs in Moscow has announced that on 24th June an agreement was signed by representatives of the German and Soviet Governments maintaining in force until June, 1933, the German-Soviet agreement of 24th April, 1926, and the German-Soviet Agreement of 25th January, 1929. After June, 1933, either of these Agreements would be terminable at a year's notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — PASSPORTS (RUSSIA).

Mr. MARCUS: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state the number of British subjects who have been granted passports to Russia since June, 1929?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: Since March, 1930, the general practice has been adopted of making the passports of intending travellers to Europe valid for "All countries in Europe, including the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and Turkey." The majority of Foreign Office passports issued since that date have, therefore, been so endorsed. My hon. Friend will appreciate that the figures relating to passports issued before that date could not be obtained without considerable labour.

Sir K. WOOD: Are any special steps being taken in relation to passports to Russia, or are they treated in the same way as to any other country?

Mr. HENDERSON: They are now treated the same as any other country.

Captain CAZALET: Do the Soviet Government make any charge for visas?

Mr. HENDERSON: I think they do, but I could not give the amount.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Are any conditions of any kind attached to visas?

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

DEBTS, CLAIMS, AND COUNTER-CLAIMS.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has now received a report from the British members of the main Anglo-Soviet Joint Committee dealing with British claims against the Soviet Government as to the attitude of the Soviet representatives towards the various classes of British claims; what is the nature of the report; and what action the Government proposes to take thereon?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: I received on Friday last a letter embodying the views of the British members of the Main Committee regarding the difficulties which have arisen in Sub-Committee B. The letter explains in detail the nature of the difficulties, and concludes with a request for instructions. The matter is now receiving my consideration.

Sir W. DAVISON: After these long months of negotiations, has the attitude of the Soviet representatives yet been defined, for example, as regards cash balances at banks belonging to private individuals?

Mr. HENDERSON: I could not make any further statement in answer to a supplementary question.

Sir W. DAVISON: When will the right hon. Gentleman be in a position to inform the House on the matter—next Monday for example?

Mr. HENDERSON: On more than one occasion I have informed the hon. Gentleman that I am doing everything I can to push forward this investigation into the debts question. I will continue to do so, but I cannot promise in advance when I shall be in a position to make a statement.

Sir K. WOOD: Are not the difficulties in the matter the same as the right hon. Gentleman indicated some weeks ago when he said that he had no knowledge?

Mr. HENDERSON: I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman refers to.

BRITISH EMBASSY PLATE.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 32.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether any more of the British Embassy plate that was stolen from Petrograd has been recovered?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Lansbury): No, Sir.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, since the last discovery of this missing plate, Soviet hospitality has been curtailed towards the British Embassy?

Mr. LANSBURY: I am sorry, but I did not hear a word of the hon. and gallant Member's question.

Sir ASSHETON POWNALL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the value of this plate was included in our claim?

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: I asked whether Soviet hospitality, since the last discovery of this missing plate, has been curtailed?

Mr. LANSBURY: I am not in Moscow.

Oral Answers to Questions — CITY OF KIGA LOAN.

Sir W. DAVISON: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that in the case of the City of Riga 4½ per cent. loan of £1,322,700, floated in this country in February, 1914, at 91½, redeemable by drawings within 39 years, no interest has been paid or drawings made since 1917, and whether he will cause representations to be made on behalf of the British holders of the above loan?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: I am aware that this loan is in default, but I understand that negotiations for a settlement have been proceeding between the municipality and the bondholders' representatives. The latter will doubtless approach me whenever they desire assistance in the negotiations.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL ARMAMENTS.

Sir K. WOOD: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can now make a statement as to the settlement of the outstanding differences left by the London Naval Treaty?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: There have been no further developments since my reply to the right hon. Gentleman on 29th June.

Sir K. WOOD: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to take any further immediate steps in the matter?

Mr. HENDERSON: I thought the right hon. Gentleman was aware, from answers that had been given, that the difficulty does not rest with His Majesty's Government. I dare say reference will be made to the subject in the forthcoming visit to Paris.

Colonel GRETTON: Are any negotiations proceeding?

Mr. HENDERSON: I have explained more than once what the situation is. Negotiations at the moment are not proceeding.

Sir K. WOOD: Did not the right hon. Gentleman claim a triumph for the results that he had achieved?

Mr. HENDERSON: Yes, and I was quite entitled to do so. The blame does not rest with the Government of this country, and I should have thought the right hon. Gentleman would be the first to admit it.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY (CIVILIAN EMPLOYES, GIBRALTAR).

Mr. KELLY: 9.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of civilian employés in the service of the Admiralty at Gibraltar in October, 1930, and June, 1931?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. A. V. Alexander): The numbers at the respective dates were 1,408 and 1,434. These numbers include non-industrial employés.

Oral Answers to Questions — BEET-SUGAR SUBSIDY.

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: 10.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies which of the sugar-producing British Dependencies have made representations
to the effect that the British sugar-beet subsidy is adversely affecting its native sugar industry?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Dr. Drummond Shiels): As far as can be ascertained, representations of the nature referred to by the hon. Member have been received from Jamaica, Trinidad, Barbados, and the Leeward Islands. These were contained in petitions in identical terms addressed to His Majesty. For further information regarding these petitions I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to a question by the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hurd) on 10th June, of which I am sending him a copy.

Oral Answers to Questions — MAURITIUS (FINANCIAL COMMISSION).

Mr. McSHANE: 11.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can now state the personnel of the financial commission to Mauritius and the terms of reference?

Dr. SHIELS: The Mauritius Financial Commission will consist of Sir Ivo Elliott, Bart., of the Indian Civil Service, who will preside over the Commission, and Mr. N. G. Loughnane, C.B., a member of the Home Civil Service. With my hon. Friend's permission I will circulate a copy of the terms of reference in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. McSHANE: When will the Commission begin its work?

Dr. SHIELS: It left England to-day.

Following are the Terms of Reference:
To investigate the financial position of Mauritius in the light of the Colony's economic resources and to report thereon: to advise as to the specific measures to be adopted to reduce expenditure and/or increase local revenue in order to secure and maintain a balancd Budget without loss of administrative efficiency or with the minimum loss of such efficiency and without undue risk of prejudicing future development or future revenue prospects; if a balanced Budget cannot be secured without serious loss of administrative efficiency or serious risk of prejudicing future development or future revenue prospects, to advise as to which of the specific measures referred to above would have to be omitted to avoid these results: to advise what measures should be taken to reduce the burden on the general revenues of the Colony in respect of the Government Railways: and to advise on the desirability, from the
financial and economic point of view, of completing the irrigation schemes which have been started in the Colony and of undertaking other schemes of development.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

LONDON TRAFFIC REGULATIONS.

Mr. DAY: 15.
asked the Minister of Transport whether any recent regulations have been made for the purpose of dealing with the question of street congestion and traffic difficulties in the West End and City areas of London during the busy rush hours of the day; and will he give particulars?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I propose, with my hon. Friend's permission, to circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of the various regulations and Orders affecting the City or West End areas, made by me since the 1st July, 1930, under the London Traffic Act, 1924.

Mr. DAY: Is the new Order with regard to one-way traffic in the Strand working satisfactorily?

Mr. MORRISON: I understand that it is.

Following is the list:

REGULATIONS AND ORDERS AFFECTING THE CITY OR "WEST END AREAS MADE UNDER THE LONDON TRAFFIC ACT, 1924, SINCE 1ST JULY, 1930.

1. Regulations made under Section 10 of the Act.

Broken down vehicles.

London Traffic (Broken Down Vehicles) Regulations, 1930, dated 31st July, 1930. S.R. & O., 1930, No. 641.

"Roundabout" and "One-Way" Traffic Schemes.

London Traffic (Prescribed Routes) Provisional Regulations, 1931, dated 21st March, 1931, prescribing "roundabout" traffic working in Ovington Square, Kensington.

London Traffic (Prescribed Routes) Amendment Provisional Regulations, 1931, dated 29th May, 1931, prescribing "one-way" traffic working in Waterloo Place and Brick Street, Westminster; Hans Crescent, Basil Street and Hans Road, Kensington; Southampton Buildings, Holborn and Cowcross Street,
Finsbury, and "roundabout" traffic working in Cheniston Gardens, Kensington.

London Traffic (Prescribed Routes) Amendment (No. 2) Provisional Regulations, 1931, dated 25th June, 1931, prescribing "one-way" traffic working in the Strand (between St. Clement Danes Church and Wellington Street), Arundel Street, Surrey Street, Melbourne Place and Aldwych.

Vehicles collecting refuse.

London Traffic (Collection of Refuse) Regulations, 1931, dated 19th January, 1931. S.R. & O., 1931, No. 27.

Parking places.

London Traffic (Parking Places) (Amendment) Regulations, 1931, dated 5th May, 1931. S.R. & O., 1931, No. 372.

Oxford Street.

London Traffic (Oxford Street) Regulations, 1931, dated 9th June, 1931. S.R. & O., 1931, No. 482.

2. Orders made under Section 4 of the Act.

Closing of streets for works.

London Traffic (Closing of Streets for Works) (No. 2) Order, 1930, dated 26th August, 1930. S.R. & O., 1930, No. 696.

London Traffic (Scheme for Street Works) (No. 2) Order, 1930, dated 29th September, 1930.

London Traffic (Scheme for Street Works) (No. 1) Order, 1931, dated 25th March, 1931.

3. Sixty-six Regulations and one Order have also been made under Section 7 of the Act in connection with the operation of omnibuses on restricted streets, and a number of these Regulations relate to omnibus services in the West End and City areas.

In addition to the above-mentioned Regulations and Orders notice has been given of the intention to make regulations placing further restrictions upon cruising cabs and also upon waiting vehicles in certain streets in the Central London Area.

ROAD MATERIALS.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: 17.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is satisfied with the results obtained from the sending out of Circular No. 314
(Roads) in February, 1930; and whether any similar communications have been sent to local authorities by his Department since this date?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I have no reason to thank that highway authorities have not had full regard to Circular No. 314 (Roads), dated 20th February, 1930, dealing with the use of British materials, and no further circular on the subject has been considered necessary. Communications on particular points have been addressed to various local authorities from time to time as they have arisen.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the Minister really satisfied with the results of the circular?

Mr. MORRISON: I have stated that I have no reason to be dissatisfied with the results of the circular, and I believe the local authorities are acting up to the advice that has been given them.

Mr. LOUIS SMITH: 19.
asked the Minister of Transport whether, as there are ample supplies of road stone available in this country, he will consider the desirability of asking Parliament for powers to prohibit the purchase of foreign road stone by local authorities?

Mr. MORRISON: I understand that the purchase of foreign road stone is practically confined to those parts of the country where by reason of freightage charges its use is economically justified. I am not prepared to advise Parliament to prevent local authorities from exercising any discretion in the matter.

Mr. SMITH: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that an abundant supply of this material is available in this country, and that there is no necessity for importations from abroad?

Mr. MORRISON: No, Sir, I am not prepared to give an unqualified answer on that point. Certain difficulties have arisen, but as far as we are concerned we have given the necessary advice to the local authorities. I do not feel that we ought to go to the length of entirely removing discretion from the local authorities.

Mr. WEST: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the great bulk of this stone is not brought in by the local authorities but by private companies?

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND - TROYTE: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider reducing the grant so that local authorities may be induced to use British stone?

Mr. MORRISON: No, Sir. If it is a question of unemployment, the requirement of the Ministry is pretty stringent. For ordinary road works we do not feel that we should go to the length of imposing Whitehall control upon local government to that extent.

RAILWAY LEVEL CEOSSING, RADSTOCK.

Mr. GOULD: 18.
asked the Minister of Transport the causes of delay in carrying out the proposed improvements to the level crossings at Radstock?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I understand that delay in the preparation of a scheme for the improvement of the level crossings at Radstock has been due to protracted negotiations between the local authorities and the railway companies. I am now informed that the appropriate committee of the Somerset County Council recently resolved to defer consideration of the proposals until their estimates for the financial year 1932–33 are prepared.

Mr. GOULD: In view of the death of a boy recently, and the private negotiations which took place as a result of his death, is it necessary to have another tragedy and a revival of the whole position; and cannot my right hon. Friend ask the county council immediately to take steps to alter this dangerous level crossing?

Mr. MORRISON: I do not know the particular circumstances of the death to which my hon. Friend refers.

Mr. GOULD: I sent the Press information to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. MORRISON: I am sorry, but I have not got it in my mind at the moment. In any case, the matter is one essentially for the Somerset County Council, and they, in common with all the other councils, know that we are anxious for the abolition of level crossings as soon as that can be done.

MOTOR WINDSCREEN WIPERS.

Mr. DAY: 20.
asked the Minister of Transport whether any tests have been made by his Department with a view to the efficiency of automatic windscreen
wipers that must be fitted to public service and commercial motor vehicles, as laid down in Clause 44 in the provisional regulations, dated 13th March, 1931; and can he give the results of the tests?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: The Regulation to which my hon. Friend refers does not apply to vehicles other than public service vehicles. Any question whether the windscreen wiper fitted to an individual public service vehicle is effective for its purpose is primarily one for the consideration of the officer who examines the vehicle, and I have not had occasion to have any test of these devices carried out by my Department.

Mr. DAY: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the windscreen wipers are electrically operated or by hand?

Mr. MORRISON: Speaking from memory, as far as i know they are automatic.

MOTOR VEHICLES (PETROL TANKS).

Sir CHARLES CAYZER: 21.
asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to the number of recent accidents to road vehicles where minor collisions have resulted in serious loss of life owing to the explosion of petrol tanks situate in a forward position on these vehicles; and whether he will consider the issuing of regulations prohibiting, after a specified date, the licensing of all road vehicles which carry their petrol tank in close proximity to the engine?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: My attention has not been drawn to any recent road accident, which could properly be described as a minor collision, and which resulted in loss of life owing to the outbreak of fire. Fire is always a possible result of a serious collision, and the risk is no doubt increased in the case of a head-on collision by a forward position of the petrol tank. A very large number of motor vehicles are designed for the fitting of a tank in this position, and so far as my present information goes I do not think that I should be justified in making a regulation on the lines suggested by the hon. Member.

Sir C. CAYZER: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of the cheapest types of motor car carry rear petrol tanks already and that, therefore,
there is no excuse for manufacturers fitting tanks to carry highly explosive petrol in close proximity to the engine?

Mr. MORRISON: I appreciate the point, and it can be considered again; but already there are many regulations governing the construction of motor oars, and I ask the hon. Member not to lead me too far in the direction of meticulous statements.

Mr. GEORGE HARDIE: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the Department have considered the use of a one-way valve in connection with petrol tanks, and whether a one-way valve might not save the whole situation?

Mr. MORRISON: My hon. Friend has got me out of my depth.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Has the right hon. Gentleman any statistics which show that cases of fire occur more frequently where the petrol tank is close to the engine?

Mr. MORRISON: No, Sir.

Mr. ERNEST WINTERTON: Is my right hon. Friend prepared to make representations that all future cars should have petrol tanks in the same position?

Mr. MORRISON: It will be considered, but I do not think that the time has yet arrived when I should make such a regulation.

ROAD SERVICB LICENCES.

Mr. WHITE: 22.
asked the Minister of Transport how many applications for licences in respect of road vehicles await determination by traffic commissioners; and if he can say by what date they will be disposed of?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: The position on 31st May last was that approximately 32,000 applications for public service vehicle licences and 27,000 applications for road service licences and backings remained to be dealt with by the traffic commissioners. It is hoped that they will all be disposed of by the end of this year.

Mr. BATEY: 24.
asked the Minister of Transport how many small omnibus companies that have been operating in the northern area for several years have not
yet received a licence under the Road Traffic Act, 1930?

Mr. MORRISON: I am not in possession of the information asked for.

Mr. BATEY: Will not the Minister try and get this information, and is he aware that some of these omnibus companies have been operating for five and nine years and yet cannot get a licence?

Mr. MORRISON: The doctrine from my hon. Friend on this side of the House that an annual licence——

Mr. BATEY: rose
——

Mr. SPEAKER: We had better get on to the next question.

MOTOR DRIVERS (DISCHARGES, NORTHERN AREA).

Mr. BATEY: 23.
asked the Minister of Transport how many of the 200 young men who have been dismissed from their employment as drivers in the northern area owing to the Road Traffic Act, 1930, have been licensed as conductors?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I have no knowledge of these cases beyond my hon. Friend's statements, and have no means of discovering how many men who were unable to satisfy the requirements in respect of minimum age or previous employment laid down by Statute for the issue of a licence to act as drivers of public service vehicles, have been able to obtain a conductor's licence.

Mr. BATEY: Will not the Minister try and get this information, and is he not aware of the serious position of these young men who are wasting their time owing to having been dismissed in a district where there is no other work to be obtained?

Mr. MORRISON: The getting of information will not make any difference to the point of policy involved. In passing the Road Traffic Act, Parliament decided that the drivers of these vehicles should be of the age of 21 unless they had previously driven for six months. The provision was considered necessary in the interests of public safety, and it is the opinion strongly held by the Transport and General Workers' Union.

Mr. BATEY: Does the Minister insist that a man is only a safe driver when he reaches the age of 21 years?

OMNIBUS FARES (NORTHERN AREAS).

Mr. BATEY: 25.
asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware, that the commissioners of the northern area have compelled the omnibus owners to increase their fares from 6d. to 9d. per day for carrying miners to and from their work; and if, owing to the low rates of wages being paid in the Durham coalfields, he will take steps to see that the old fares are restored?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: My attention has not been called to the matter except in the correspondence forwarded to me by my hon. Friend on 24th June. As I explained to him in my reply, I have no jurisdiction in the matter of the conditions attached to a road service licence by the Traffic Commissioners except on an appeal under Section 81 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930.

Mr. BATEY: But when a Member of Parliament sends a complaint to the Minister, will not the Minister regard it as an appeal, especially in a case like the present one, where the fares have been increased to men who cannot afford to pay an increase?

Mr. MORRISON: My hon. Friend, with great respect, is not qualified to make an appeal under the Road Traffic Act. Members of Parliament are not qualified under the Act, and I must be careful about submitting to political pressure in a judicial function.

Mr. MACLEAN: Are we to understand from the statement of the Minister that now the Road Traffic Act has been passed all control of road traffic has passed entirely from this House and cannot be resumed by it?

Mr. MORRISON: Parliament can always dismiss the Minister if it has a mind to do so. Parliament laid it down that applications should go to the Traffic Commissioners, who should hear them upon evidence and decide them fairly. An appeal rests from them to me, and I must hear the evidence; I must hear appeals and settle them judicially. If once I submit to Parliamentary pressure upon an individual case, then Parliament ought to dismiss me as soon as possible.

Mr. HARRIS: Is this the kind of thing that will happen when the London Traffic Bill comes into operation?

CHARING CROSS BRIDGE.

Sir K. WOOD: 26.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he can now make a further statement as to the question of the new Charing Cross bridge; whether in such connection regard will be paid by him to the convenience of the travelling public throughout South-East London and West Kent; and whether consideration will be given to the practicability of the construction of a three-arched combined road and rail bridge and the saving oil cost thereby effected?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I understand that the London County Council have not yet come to a decision on the report of the Advisory Committee appointed by them to consider the various schemes for a bridge at Charing Cross, and until I am in possession of their views I am not in a position to make any statement in the matter. As the right hon. Member is aware, a combined road and rail bridge was one of the schemes considered by the Advisory Committee.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: In view of the great urgency and necessity for this bridge, and also the necessity for providing work, cannot the Minister put some pressure on the various authorities who are discussing the matter in order to get it pressed forward?

Mr. MORRISON: The hon. Member must face facts. The bridges authority for the County of London is the London County Council, not me. I am very sorry that this business has been hanging about for so many years, but the fault is not mine.

Sir K. WOOD: Is it not the case that very important questions arise and that a large expenditure of money is involved?

Mr. MORRISON: I quite agree.

MOTOR PASSENGER VEHICLES (SPEED).

Mr. FREEMAN: 51.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that motor transport passenger vehicles frequently exceed the authorised speed limit; and whether he will instruct the mobile police patrols to exercise a stricter control of the speeds of such vehicles and enforce the speed limits imposed by law?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Short): The police have had instructions on the subject and they are fully alive to the importance of securing compliance with the speed limits, so far as their resources and opportunities will permit. My right hon. Friend believes they are achieving a considerable measure of success, and he does not think any further instructions from him are required.

Mr. FREEMAN: Is the Under-Secretary aware that these speed limits are being exceeded on every main road, every day, and that the police are not taking any action?

Mr. SHORT: If the hon. Member will give me particulars of these cases, I will have them investigated.

OMNIBUSES, LONDON (DESTINATION INDICATORS).

Sir RENNELL RODD: 56.
asked the Home Secretary whether steps have now been taken to secure that the point of destination of omnibuses of the newest pattern running in London should be clearly indicated on the rear and the side as well as on the front and that the number should be plainly shown on the rear as well as on the front?

Mr. SHORT: My right hon. Friend is informed by the Commissioner of Police that arrangements have been made for the route number and the destination point to be displayed in large type on the near side and on the rear of double deck omnibuses of the type referred to.

RAILWAY ELECTRIFICATION.

Captain RONALD HENDERSON (for Sir PHILIP DAWSON): 28.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he can now make a further statement as regards the proposals of the London and North Eastern Railway Company to electrify 50 miles of suburban lines out of King's Cross Station; and when this work is likely to be taken in band and the electrification completed?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Mr. Parkinson): As the hon. Member is aware an application by the railway company for Government financial assistance in connection with the proposals referred to is now under consideration by the Development (Public Utilities) Advisory Committee.

Captain R. HENDERSON (for Sir P. DAWSON): 29.
asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the inadequate services given by the London and North Eastern Railway Company from Liverpool Street Station to workers living in West Ham, East Ham, Barking, Walthamstow, Becontree, etc., and having regard to the fact that proposals for electrifying the whole of this area have been worked out, any steps can be taken to induce the railway company to proceed with this work, especially in order to furnish work to those industries which are now suffering most from unemployment?

Mr. PARKINSON: My information is that active consideration is at the present time being given by the railway company to alternative schemes for the electrification of the Great Eastern suburban area, but that the company are not in a position to make definite proposals at present. I will, however, call their attention to the hon. Member's question.

Sir JOHN FERGUSON: Will the hon. Gentleman keep in mind that these schemes are schemes which in the opinion of those who have examined them would relieve unemployment more than any other schemes?

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL PARKS (ALCOHOLIC REFRESHMENT).

Mr. ISAACS: 31.
asked the First Commissioner of Works how many premises licensed for the sale of alcoholic liquors are located on land in connection with his Department apart from the Royal Parks and the Tower of London; and the total amount of rents received therefrom?

Mr. LANSBURY: I am having the necessary inquiries made and will communicate the results to my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

RIOTS, CAWNPORE.

Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: 36.
asked the Secretary of State for India the number of Muslims and of Hindus killed during the recent riots in villages on the first 13 miles of the grand trunk road from Cawnpore to Fatehgarh?

The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Wedgwood Benn): The only information in my possession with regard to riots in villages in the neighbourhood of Cawnpore will be found on page 30 of the report of the Commission on the Cawnpore Riots. It is there stated that about seven Muslims were killed.

UNITED PROVINCES (EXECUTIONS).

Sir A. KNOX: 37.
asked the Secretary of State for India what instructions the Government of the United Provinces has issued at any time in the past 18 months to district magistrates to indicate the line of action they should adopt towards hartals; and whether any special instructions were issued in anticipation of the hartals expected to follow the execution of Bhagat Singh?

Mr. BENN: I understand that confidential instructions were issued to commissioners and district officers under them as to precautions in the event of demonstrations in connection with the execution of Bhagat Singh and others. Such detailed information as to the conduct of local administration is not ordinarily communicated to the Secretary of State.

LAND DUES AND BENTS, RAE BARELI DISTRICT.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 41.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the deputy commissioner at Rae Bareli has been instructed by the Government to cancel letters issued by him with regard to the steps to be taken to prevent Congress agents advocating non-payment of rent and taxes, in view of the Irwin-Gandhi agreement; and seeing that his orders under Section 144 of the Criminal Code have had to be modified, what steps are now permissible to prevent incitement to agrarian outrages?

Mr. BENN: I have seen the Press report to which the hon. and gallant Member referred on Monday last, and also another Press message which gives-extracts from the two letters which the district magistrate was apparently instructed to withdraw. I see no ground for apprehending that the applicability of any provision of the law is in any way affected by this incident.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is it the case that this deputy commissioner, who
tried to uphold the law, has been sacrificed to political pressure from the Hindu party?

Mr. BENN: The hon. and gallant Member is entirely mistaken in that statement, nor have I any evidence which confirms his view.

BRITISH GOODS (BOYCOTT AND EXPORT).

Mr. DOUGLAS HACKING: 40.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the terms of the Irwin-Gandhi agreement, he proposes to take any action regarding the picketing of the shops of dealers in foreign cloth by Congress volunteers in Allahabad city?

Mr. BENN: From the Press reports which I have seen and to which the right hon. Member no doubt refers, I gather that the district magistrate is at pains to ensure that such picketing as takes place conforms to the terms of the agreement.

Mr. HACKING: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me the difference between a political boycott and an economic boycott carried out by a political party?

Mr. BENN: That appears to be a philisophic question of general import. It is quite obvious that an economic boycott is very different from a boycott which is specific and discriminate.

Mr. BRACKEN: Would it not be better to have a statesman instead of a philosopher at the India Office?

PANDIT JAWAHARLAL NEHRU (SPEECH).

Mr. BRACKEN: 42.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the speech made by Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, on the 22nd June, at Kokhraj village, in the Allahabad district, in which he advocated the establishment of a peasant republic in India; and whether, in view of the seditious character of this speech, it is proposed to prosecute Pandit Nehru?

Mr. BENN: I have no information beyond a newspaper report of this speech.

Mr. BRACKEN: Does the Secretary of State get no information whatever from India? This statement has appeared in the Press.

Mr. WINTERTON: Can the Secretary of State say whether there is anything to prevent any subject of His Majesty from advocating a republic?

Mr. BENN: That is another philosophic inquiry. The question that the magistrate has to deal with is whether there is a danger of a breach of the peace, and as to that it is best to leave him to judge.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Is the right hon. Gentlemen always in a state of philosophic doubt?

Oral Answers to Questions — TIN MINES, CORNWALL.

Mr. KELLY: 44.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether any tin mines have ceased working in Cornwall during the last 12 months?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Shinwell): During the last 12 months productive operations ceased at six Cornish tin mines, although dressing operations at one and pumping operations at another were continued. Prospecting operations at another mine ceased.

Mr. KELLY: Are any investigations being undertaken by the Department to see whether these mines may again resume work?

Mr. SHINWELL: Some time ago I asked my metalliferous mines advisory committee to conduct an inquiry not exclusively into the tin mines, but into mineral resources generally. I understand that they have referred the matter to a non-ferrous sub-committee and that a report will be published shortly. I doubt very much, on the information in my possession, whether much can be done.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: Is not this entirely a case of the price of tin?

Mr. SHINWELL: I think it is largely.

Oral Answers to Questions — FORESTRY (WORKERS' HOLDINGS).

Mr. ROSBOTHAM: 43.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, the number of persons housed on the forest workers' holdings set up by the Commissioners, the average rent of the holdings, the average acreage,
the number of head of livestock held by the tenants, and the approximate total value of such stock; and the amount of the grants and loans by the Commissioners for the purchase of stock for these holdings?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. W. R. Smith): The information required, taken from the latest census of the forest workers' holdings established by the Forestry Commissioners, is set out in a table which, with the permission of the House, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the table:


Number of forest workers' holdings
881


Number of forest workers resident on the holdings
953


Total number of residents on the holdings
3,513


Average annual rent of house, outbuildings and land
£14 7s.


Average area
10 acres


Head of live stock:—



Horses
331


Cows
477


Cattle
244


Calves
245


Goats
321


Sheep
1,800


Pigs
1,316


Poultry
42,516


Other
177


Estimated value of the live stock
£31,333


Grants and loans by the commissioners for the purchase of live stock
Nil.

Oral Answers to Questions — ECONOMY COMMITTEE (MINISTRIES).

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the course of abolishing Ministries that may now be superfluous or could be dispensed with in the interests of economy?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Philip Snowden): No large economy can be effected by the abolition of Ministries unless the services for which they were established can also be abolished. The question whether any real economy can be achieved by the abandonment of any of
the existing Government services is a matter within the field of inquiry of the Economy Committee whose report is expected shortly.

Mr. WILLIAMS: May I ask whether the Economy Committee are going into this question in detail?

Mr. SNOWDEN: I do not know, but, as I have stated over and over again, we are leaving it to the Committee to conduct their own business in their own way.

Sir A. POWNALL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what substantial contribution the present Cabinet is going to make towards the cause of economy?

Mr. SNOWDEN: The hon. Member had better wait until the report of the Economy Committee is published. As I have said over and over again, the House set up that Committee, and the responsibility for dealing with the matter rests with them.

Sir A. POWNALL: Is not this substantial contribution a question for the Cabinet rather than for the Economy Committee.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: 46.
asked the Prime Minister what economies have been introduced as a result of the deliberations of the Economy Committee?

Mr. SNOWDEN: The hon. Member's question is premature, as the Economy Committee has not yet presented its report.

Oral Answers to Questions — ECONOMIC REORGANISATION.

Major HERBERT EVANS: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the sanction of credits towards financing the establishment of new industries for producing articles now wholly imported from foreign countries for which there is an assured home market of substantial and increasing extent?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: I cannot undertake to argue, within the limits of an answer to a Parliamentary Question, the implications of the problem which my hon. and gallant Friend raises. If he will refer to Part 2 of the "Statement of the principal measures taken by His Majesty's Government in connection with Unemployment" (Command Paper 3746), he will see a statement of the Government's general measures in relation to economic reorganisation.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY (ABANDONED MINES).

Mr. KELLY: 48.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether the catalogue of abandoned mines is now complete for each area of the country?

Mr. SHINWELL: Yes, Sir, the fifth and final volume was published in May. Supplements, to keep the volumes up to date, will be published annually.

Mr. KELLY: I take it that these are available for any hon. Member who desires to consult this catalogue?

Mr. SHINWELL: I understand that they will be shortly available in the Library.

Sir HENRY BETTERTON: Does this catalogue include non-ferrous mines as well as coal mines?

Mr. SHINWELL: I must have notice of that question.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Can the Secretary for Mines say how many mines have been abandoned during the last two years?

Mr. SHINWELL: The hon. Member will be able to get that information when the catalogue is available.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHURCH ESTATES (LICENSED PREMISES).

Mr. HICKS: 49.
asked the hon. Member for Central Leeds, as representing the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, how many public-houses, beer shops, hotels, and clubs licensed to sell intoxicated liquors are located on land or in buildings belonging to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners; and what is the total amount received as rentals therefrom?

Mr. DENMAN (Second Church Estates Commissioner): Excluding clubs, the number of which is not recorded in the Commissioners' Rentals, there are on the Ecclesiastical Commissioners property 297 other licensed houses of the description given in the hon. Member's question. The annual rentals amount to £26,423; but some of the rentals are in respect of blocks of property included in the same leases with the licensed houses.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLICE COURTS.

Mr. FREEMAN: 50.
asked the Home Secretary whether he will consider the desirability of changing the name police court into court of inquiry or similar term?

Mr. SHORT: My right hon. Friend would of course be ready to consider better names if such could be found; but he is not aware of any general desire for a change and the public might not take to new names for these familiar institutions.

Mr. FREEMAN: Are not these courts part and parcel of the system of the administration of justice in this country, with no monopoly or control by the police? Therefore, is not this term an undesirable interference——

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter of argument.

Oral Answers to Questions — CRIMINAL LAW.

Mr. MARCUS: 54.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that recently the Scottish verdict of not proven was returned in a criminal case tried in an English court of law; and if he has considered the advisability of taking the necessary steps to make such a verdict part of the law of England?

Mr. SHORT: My right hon. Friend has seen a press report. The learned judge directed the entry of a verdict of not guilty. My right hon. Friend is not aware of any general desire in this country for a change in the law, and he could not consider the question of initiating legislation on the matter unless there was evidence of such a desire.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL SAVINGS CERTIFICATES.

Mr. MARCUS: 56.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in consequence of the increasing demand for national savings certificates, he will increase the maximum amount which can at present be held by each person?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: The interest earned on savings certificates is exempt from Income Tax and Sur-tax, and for that reason I cannot contemplate raising the maximum amount which may be held by one person.

Oral Answers to Questions — CYPRUS (TURKISH TRIBUTE).

Mr. WHITE: 57.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the present position in regard to the accumulations of £11,000 annual surplus of the payments of £92,800 (after deducting £81,800 appropriated to the Turkish Loan of 1855) made by Cyprus yearly from 1878 till 1927 in respect of the Turkish Tribute; what figure have these accumulations, including interest, reached now; and are they still deposited with the Bank of England in a separate account?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: As the result of the settlement arrived at in 1930 of the Egyptian liability and of the application for Sinking Fund purposes of the surplus available on the Cyprus payments, the amount of the 1855 Loan outstanding has now been reduced to £2,558,600 and the securities held for the purpose of a Sinking Fund amount to a nominal value of £1,061,896. In reply to the last part of the question, these securities are held in a separate account at the Bank of England.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT (STATISTICS).

Mr. BUCHANAN: 58
asked the Minister of Labour (1) if she can state the number of married women now receiving benefit whose husbands are in employment and earning on an average in 12 months £4 per week;
(2) if she can state the number of persons who are receiving benefit and who are classified as either short-time or intermittent workers and who receive an average income of £2 in six days;
(3) if she can state the number of persons engaged in week-end printing in this country and now drawing benefit?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Miss Bondfield): I regret that statistics giving the information desired in these questions is not available.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I have on the Paper two other questions which deal with this class of worker. Would it not be as well if the Minister could get the figures in time for the Debate to-day on a Bill which concerns these workers?

Mr. McSHANE: How is it possible to estimate that £5,000,000 could be saved
when the estimate is based on figures which apparently no one has got?

Mr. BUCHANAN: Why is it that the Minister has not the figures about the married women, seeing that the Ministry's officials have power to question every married woman as to the income of her husband?

Miss BONDFIELD: The present Acts do not permit the compiling of statistics on these specific points, and we have no statistics separating the actual claims into these particular groups. We have, broadly speaking, statistics of certain categories of special test inspections, the 10 per cent. test inspections.

Mr. BRACKEN: If the Ministry of Labour has a statistical department, surely it can divide these figures into the various blocks? Is it not a fact that statistics which suit the Government are given, and that those which do not suit the Government are not given?

Mr. BUCHANAN: Can the Minister not give me the figures on the 10 per cent. basis?

Miss BONDFIELD: If the hon. Member will give me notice I will try to supply the information.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is it not possible for the Minister to give us the figures to-day? It is not an undue advantage for which to ask, that that information should be supplied, seeing that a Bill is to be discussed affecting this class of worker. If figures on the 100 per cent. basis are not possible, cannot they be provided for the 10 per cent.?

Miss BONDFIELD: All the statistics that are available at the Ministry were put in in evidence before the Royal Commission, the report of which the hon. Member has received.

Mr. G. HARDIE: Is it the case that to-day's Debate is to be based on one, or perhaps two, cases, and that those are to align the general application of something that is not known? The importance of to-day's Debate cannot be exaggerated, and I ask the Minister to say whether or not there is sufficient power given to make a statement in regard to the Bill?

Mr. SPEAKER: That hardly arises out of the original question.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. STANLEY BALDWIN: Would the Chancellor of the Exchequer state what business it is proposed to take to-night?

Mr. SNOWDEN: It is proposed to complete to-night the first three items on the Order Paper, down to and including the Report stage of the Financial Resolution of the Housing (Rural Authorities) Bill.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is it the intention of the Government, at the end of the discussion of the Unemployment Insur

ance Bill to-day, to move that further stages be taken on the Floor of the House?

Mr. SNOWDEN: I cannot answer that question.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business he exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. P. Snowden.]

The House divided: Ayes, 222; Noes, 103.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (No. 3) BILL.

Question again proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Major MILNER: I regret that the hon. Baronet who has been absent for so many months has apparently left us again, presumably for a few more months. I was saying when the interruption occurred that, as I understand it, the hon. Baronet was putting forward certain suggestions in quite general terms as to constructive works, relief works, long-term policies, and so on, and I was about to remind the House
that there have been quite recently, as part of the Government's policy, very large questions before them which the hon. Baronet presumably strongly supported, as they find a place in his pamphlet of odds and ends entitled "A National Policy," but which he did not find it possible to give his time to come here to assist the Government in passing. I will merely refer to the agricultural Measures introduced by the Minister of Agriculture, the housing Measures introduced by the Minister of Health, and the London Transport Bill introduced by the Minister of Transport. I, therefore, anticipated hearing something rather more definite as to the alternative which it was suggested should be adopted in place of the Bill now before the House. I gather from a programme which an hon. Friend has been good enough to hand to me, that the hon. Baronet has been engaged with his party in providing, presumably as such an alternative, a good deal of employment, and is intending to do the same sort of thing in future. Example speaks louder than precept.
I have here a poster setting out a programme of the New party's demonstration which is to take place on Saturday, 1st August, 1931. We cannot, of course, be responsible for the grammar. This is to be
The most gigantic, biggest, best and cheapest one-day attraction in Great Britain.
It is described as the New party's "Demonstration, Fete and Gala." The speakers at the top of the bill are the hon. Baronet the Member for Smethwick, and the hon. Lady the Member for Stoke. I see that there is to be a remarkable band contest for the hon. Baronet's Silver Challenge Cup, value 50 guineas, and £15. Why it should be necessary to have brass bands present when the hon. Baronet is there, I cannot understand. It is interesting to note also that the test piece is entitled "Golden Age." Those who attend are to be favoured with a
Lavish Stage Performance booked at enormous expense.
The first turn is to be Oswald, "Eccentric Skater"—I beg the hon. Baronet's pardon, not Oswald, but "Alvis." Then there are
The Victas, sensational acrobatic barrel jumpers,
and presumably the hon. Baronet again personating.
Clown Durney Rolling Globe Performer, introducing spade dancing and acrobats on the chairs.
This time on the chairs, not on the benches. Then we have
Doreen and Eddy, great comedy tumblers and hand balancers.
I do not know whether that has any reference to the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Allen) whose Christian name, I believe, is Edward. The hon. Baronet's contribution to the agricultural problem is the gift of a live pig, the prize in a clock golf competition. Then we have an excellent boxing programme, with a contest between Harry Crossley of Mexborough and Kid Moose of Southport and so on. As the hon. Baronet's contribution to the aid of industry, a Morris Minor saloon car is to be "given away absolutely free—see big bills." The poster says "What a day's entertainment!" [Interruption.] I am quoting from the New party's programme——

Mr. BRACKEN: On a point of Order. Has this anything to do with the Bill?

Mr. SPEAKER: It seems rather like a Bill in itself.

Major MILNER: I have almost concluded. They are going to have
A heavy attractive boxing programme, a first-class sports programme, two high class band contests, a tip-top stage performance, a bit of sport winning a live pig, and a chance to win a Morris motor car—all for 1s. 2d.
All these attractions are apparently necessary in order to interest the populace sufficiently to go and listen to the hon. Baronet the Member for Smethwick.
I support this Bill. [An HON. MEMBER: "Which Bill?"] The Bill which is before the House, and not the Bill promulgated by the hon. Member for Smethwick. I support it because it indicates the intention of the Government not only to maintain, but, where opportunity occurs, to improve and increase existing benefits; it is at the same time an indication of their determination to remove these and many other admitted and harmful anomalies when they are found
and brought to their notice. The hon. Baronet's policy is not even the old Roman policy of providing bread and circuses. He provides the circuses alone. The Government are providing bread, and a good deal more than bread in many instances, and some of us wish that even more could be done in that direction. In so far, however, as this Bill is a contribution to a fair dealing with this problem, taken in conjunction with other Measures of the Government and in conjunction particularly with the financial provisions which were before us the other day, I hope that the House will pass it without any censorious voice other than the two voices we have heard.

Captain WATERHOUSE: The House has listened with interested attention to the close diagnosis of the Measure before the House which has been delivered by the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner). We cannot be surprised that hon. Members opposite are slightly annoyed that some of their erstwhile supporters have come over to sit on these benches. We listened to a very remarkable speech by the hon. Member for Smethwick (Sir O. Mosley), and, whether we agree with it or not, the House must realise that there is a good deal of thought behind it, and must agree, too, that His Majesty's Government deserve the remarks about them which fell from the hon. Baronet's lips.
I should like to ask the House to consider what the principles should be behind any unemployment Measure to-day. It is always interesting to go back to first principles, and in this case the first principles were promulgated in this House about 20 years ago. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) introduced the first Unemployment Bill in May, 1911, and it was moved by the then President of the Board of Trade in a rather remarkable Second Beading speech. He laid down certain definite lines which should be our guide today. He said that the burden should be shared by the employers, the workers and the State, and that the system should be compulsory and contributory. He said that it should aid—and this is a very remarkable statement—towards the diminution and prevention, as well as the alleviation, of unemployment. He said that
criticisms had been raised that the Measure he was introducing was creating risks unknown and unfathomable. How well we realise to-day that the risks he undertook 20 years ago were both unknown and unfathomable!
He said, however, that he set up round those risks a triple defence. First there was the defence of the contribution, then the defence of the benefit, and finally the margin of surplus. The first defence of contribution has been played out. The contribution, which started as a few pence, has now gone up in the aggregate to 2s. 3d. for every insured person. Once that first line was passed, what lines were there behind? When we got to the second line, the line of benefit, we found that the parapet had been put on the wrong side. It was no longer a fire trench to stop raids on the solvency of this fund, but a trench from which to shoot on those who were defending the solvency of the fund. That line was swept away, and the subsequent line, the margin of surplus, proved to be entirely non-existent. Now we find ourselves going over a broad plain without any defences in front of us between national bankruptcy and the final abandonment if this policy is continued, of all schemes of national insurance, for the good reason that we shall not be able to afford them. Across this plain the Government have placed one strand of wire in this Bill. There are no barbs in the wire; it is not even a live wire, and if this is the best that the Government can do to stem the attack, we have got to a sorry plight in considering any measure of unemployment insurance in this country.
7.0 p.m.
Immediately after the War, we had recourse to extraordinary measures of what we called the out-of-work donation. When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Home) as Minister of Labour introduced his Insurance Bill in 1920, he dealt with this out-of-work donation firmly and not too kindly. He spoke of it as a guide and a warning to the House and the country when they came to consider setting up a more permanent scheme. He said that Members opposite, referring to hon. Gentlemen who sit there and some of those who now sit here below the Gangway, declared that
it was a source of demoralisation to the people. If out-of-work donations then were a source of demoralisation, is not our whole system now a much greater source of demoralisation? The present Home Secretary made a very remarkable contribution to that Debate. He made a remark which might well be made from this side of the House about this particular Bill. Speaking of unemployment and the difficulties of unemployment insurance he said:
It will not be cured, the difficulty will not be overcome, and we shall not catch up with the arrears of work by any such Measure as this, and that is why the right hon. Gentleman, in the closing part of his speech, admitted that this Measure cannot be described as heroic, as any attempt, I suppose, to cover the ground that needs to be covered in relation to this great economic problem."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th February, 1920; col. 1761, Vol. 125.]
Could words more suitable be found to describe the feelings of the House and the country when they are discussing this so-called Anomalies Bill, which the right hon. Lady has introduced?
The scheme to-day has ceased to be a contributory scheme in any real sense whatever. It has ceased almost altogether to be a scheme for sharing the burden. The Committee's figures were instructive on that point. Out of an estimated expenditure of £118,000,000, the beneficiaries are to contribute no more than £14,000,000. For every shilling distributed, the workers contribute only 1½d. If we assume, as we are entitled to, that from half to two-thirds of the insured workers never have to draw benefit at all, it is a halfpenny or three-farthings contribution which is earning for the others a shilling in unemployment pay or dole, whichever you like to call it. A halfpenny or three-farthings paid and one shilling received—the right hon. Lady cannot possibly refer to that as in any sense a contributory scheme. The Royal Commission has presented its report, which was long asked for. Where is it now? Gone to join the reports on the cotton trade and on the wool trade, the Simon Report, and the host of other reports issued by various committees and commissions which now lie in the pigeon-holes of various Government Departments. It can be said that the mountain was in labour, and, after many rumblings, gave birth, not even to a
mouse, but to a miserable little worm now creeping towards a tiny and invisible hole. Its oscillations are being pursued down the slope by the mailed heel of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), and the heavier and more sonexous foot of the hon. Member for Smethwick.
What is going to be the fate of this scheme? We have a right to ask the right hon. Lady at this juncture. Is she going to make any attempt during her tenure of office to get back to an insurance basis, or is this her first and last word on this question? I, personally, do not stand in any way for small benefits as a necessity. I should like to see a scheme started which was so arranged on an actuarial basis that the bona fide unemployed man and woman got as near a normal wage when he or she was out of work as possible, with the smallest margin of difference between the two, but, in order to get that, one thing has got to be made absolutely clear. We have got to be certain that only genuine unemployed, who are not only willing but anxious to get back to work, can draw the benefit at all. Before one can get to that state of perfection, that ideal, we have got to inculcate into everybody in the scheme the idea that, if there is any malingering, any drawing of benefits by people who should not draw them, they are thereby directly and certainly going to deprive others in the scheme from drawing what is their right.
At present, the opposite is the case. They know that there is no attempt at an actuarial basis, that whether they draw one week's or six months' benefit without a real necessity makes not one whit difference to anybody else around them. As long as that is the case, what incentive is there to get any section of the community to look on this as an insurance scheme and to play fair by the scheme? The idea I have put forward of large benefits is not very far from realisation in some directions now. In many textile trades one finds women working for from 28s. to 30s. a week. If such a woman happens to have two small children, whom she has to board out, she has to pay 12s. or 15s. a week to a neighbour to look after them. The difference between her cash in hand when she is working and when she is on her unemployment pay is almost negligible
in that case. I do not think it has been greatly abused, but our present system is laying itself open in that direction to very grave abuse indeed.
If the right hon. Lady is not willing to adopt such a course as that—and she cannot be, in view of her attitude on the "not genuinely seeking work" Clause—she must consider the question of smaller benefits as against restrictions. When one looks round and sees the wage reductions that have taken place in the industries of this country among shipbuilders, miners, textile workers and in the Civil Service, whore two reductions have already taken place and another is threatened on 1st September, one wonders, if the right hon. Lady has got in mind those tremendous reductions, how she can stand to-day for the benefits which are now being paid. There has been no change in the money benefits in the last four years, and in the last 10 years the real benefits have increased by 100 per cent. It is not the policy of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on this side. They do not want to take this line, as they have got a fully developed scheme, a proper scheme, but, unless such a scheme is brought forward, then the right hon. Lady has no choice but to do what she was advised to do by her own Commission, and to adopt the line of altering a scale which has proved incapable of being put on an actuarial basis. The Government's contribution to the Unemployment Insurance question in this regard is such a poor one that it might be considered as negligible. You, Mr. Speaker, a few minutes ago said you were not always sure whether speeches were in favour or against the Bill. I am not surprised, for if a man was being washed down the tide by the Thames and someone threw him a reel of cotton, it would be hard to say whether he was very pleased or very aggrieved. Really, throwing out what is only a gesture at this time is almost an insult to the unemployed and to those who are paying for unemployment benefit, the other wage-earners of this country.
Is the right hon. Lady really in earnest in introducing this Bill? Is she really determined to get it on the Statute Book and operative shortly? When we were discussing the Money Resolution, I pointed out that it might be six or seven months before any provision under this
scheme came into operation. Is that the right hon. Lady's intention? Does she mean to let the matter go on in that way, or does she mean to get to work on this Bill? I do not believe that she will have any factious opposition, or, indeed, any opposition at all from this side of the House on the Committee stage. I doubt whether she will have any Amendments put down on the Committee stage. If a day does not offer, is she willing to put it down at 11 o'clock and get it through in order to carry out these small meausres which she thinks are necessary? I would not vote in the "No" Lobby to-night, even if some hon. Members opposite think of taking that course, but, unless the right hon. Lady will give some assurance that she not only means to put the Bill on the Statute Book, but to do so before the Recess, and to put it into operation before the Recess, I shall not feel justified in supporting the Measure with my vote. It will be very hard for the right hon. Lady, in those circumstances, to withstand a charge of complete insincerity in her handling of this Measure. This is called a Bill to deal with anomalies. It is the Bill itself which is the anomaly and the greatest anomaly of all is that the right hon. Lady and her colleagues are to-day being entrusted with the guidance and misgovernment of this country at a time of crisis the like of which we have never known, and the like of which I hope that we shall never know again in our history.

Dr. PHILLIPS: In rising to speak on this Debate, I ought to say a word or two as to the part that I myself have had to take on this question of unemployment insurance in regard to women. As secretary of the Standing Joint Committee of Industrial Women's Organisations, I was concerned in drawing up and giving evidence before the Royal Commission on this subject. That committee represents about 1,000,000 working women in the Labour, trade union and co-operative movements. It gave a great deal of time and consideration to drawing up the evidence which it placed before the Commission. It is too frequently the case that in industrial difficulties the old rule of chivalry is applied, and it is a case of "women and children first." That is exemplified in the attitude taken up by a great many people
in this country, and especially by hon. Members opposite, towards women in insurance when the difficulties of the fund were growing. They looked, as they always will, to see if there was something that could be saved on the women. There came a great outcry against married women in insurance.
The difficulty with regard to married women in employment in this country is this, that the great majority of them do not continue in industry after marriage, and that when they do so continue it is either because they live in one of the textile areas or one of the pottery areas, where it is the custom for married women to stay in employment, or because of poverty in the home. Under present circumstances the number of married women desiring employment rises just as the amount of employment both for men and women decreases, and it is therefore very natural that there is at present a great increase in the number of married women drawing benefit. A great many people jumped to the conclusion that the bulk of those women were unfairly drawing benefit; the number of married women drawing benefit was enormously exaggerated on every side. My organisation felt, therefore, it was very necessary to examine the situation carefully to see how far the statement that married women in very large numbers were unfairly coming on to the fund was true, and, if it were true, how it could be met. What we found was this, that from all quarters individual cases were brought forward where there was undoubtedly a wrong position, a position never intended by the Insurance Acts, in which women who were not in the true sense available for employment and therefore had not a right to benefit were drawing benefit.
Those were individual cases, and they are, I believe, far fewer in number than is yet realised, because a great many of the cases placed before the commission—not by my organisation, but by others—were very poor instances of what they were supposed to prove; but that there were a number, a number that nobody can exactly estimate, is undoubtedly true. To some extent there is a notion amongst them—and I think one can very well understand how it has arisen—that, as they had paid in for a
very long time without getting anything out, when they got married and left industry came the chance for them to get a bit of it back. There is not a moral right of that kind, but one can understand the feeling, especially in a time of great poverty. In addition to that there are undoubtedly women here and there who are taking advantage of the present situation, and the regulations laid down by Parliament, to stay on the fund when, in fact, they do not desire wage-earning employment. To some extent umpires' decisions have been to blame for that, because the decisions in relation to married women's work in some instances treat the words "available for work" in a sense so wide as to make them almost ridiculous.
But if those cases exist we on this side of the House have no reason to say that we want them to continue, and I believe that the working class, who are infinitely more honest in their outlook than many people who have been for a very long time members of political organisations within this House, have a straightforward and exact sense of what is right and what is wrong, a sense which sometimes gets a little blurred in the case of those who have been for some years in this Assembly. I think the working class are the last people to say that they want anybody to draw benefit who is not entitled to that benefit as a person seeking work. When we came to draw up our evidence, we found that this matter had been greatly exaggerated, and we were most anxious to make it clear to the Commission that we were totally against any proposal to sweep married women out of unemployment insurance.
The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) quoted a sentence or two from the chairman's examination of me before the Commission. His quotation was perfectly correct, but the chairman's question to me was whether I would be in favour of married women automatically ceasing to be insured, losing all rights to insurance and having to re-insure after marriage before they would be eligible for any benefits. I said, in reply, that it was lucky that married women had votes, because I could imagine no House of Commons agreeing to sweep them out in that fashion. That I repeat. I think it would be a totally impossible proposition. What we said in our evidence, however,
was perfectly true. We said we would have no objection to Regulations which would make it certain that no one should draw benefit who was not genuinely available for work so long as they penalised no one who was genuinely entitled to benefit, whether married or single. To that I adhere, and I believe the proposals in this Bill will enable that principle to be carried out. I do not regard the constitution of the committee as being a constitution in which the workers cannot have confidence. I am quite confident that a committee which contains two appointed members and three representatives of the Trade Union Congress, and a committee whose regulations have to be placed before this House, is a committee before which the working woman's position can be properly and fairly and justly supported.

Mr. STEPHEN: Does that mean that the hon. Lady wants, in the case of married women, to reimpose the "genuinely seeking work" condition?

Dr. PHILLIPS: It means exactly what it says. It means that if a way can be found in which married women who have after marriage ceased to work and then go to an Exchange, not having been working since their marriage, and want work, and are still in benefit, that if a long period has elapsed they may be subjected to special inquiry to test the fact of whether they are really available for work. It does not mean that if a married woman comes to the exchange, having fallen out of work, and brings her baby with her in a perambulator, that it shall be said that because she has the baby in the perambulator whenever she comes to sign on obviously she is not looking for work. I have heard some people take that objection, but that I think is nonsensical, because obviously if she is looking for work she has nobody to look after the baby until she has got work. The Regulations to be drawn up in this case need the most careful consideration and need the most careful safeguards, and if any way can be found, even before the proposals are being operated by the committee, to make those words more exact I should be very glad indeed to see it. But I do think the hon. Lady who has brought in the Bill has got over one difficulty, inasmuch as she has not classified all married women. She has selected as the only ones to whom special inquiries
can be applied, those who have not any record of work over a period after their marriage. That does not mean that all those women will be deprived of benefit if they are unemployed. It simply means that special regulations and special inquiry will be made in their case, inquiry which may not be made in the case of other women.
I want to say a word or two about the other classes which are brought into the Bill—persons employed in seasonal work and persons employed for not more than two days in the week. There are women in both those classes. My organisation put evidence on that point also before the Commission, and I would say the same there as I have said about the married women who are not in fact available for work. With regard to seasonal workers who for years have worked during the season at a particular employment but not worked during the rest of the year, if you can devise regulations suitable to them, so that they will not just automatically draw benefit during the remaining part of the year when they are not even thinking about working, it is indefensible to say that we should not agree to such regulations; but one must be careful in drawing up the regulations to leave sufficient elasticity to permit of those people drawing benefit who are only working at a seasonal employment perforce, because they cannot get anything else during the rest of the year.
Whenever I have spoken on his subject—and I have been dealing for the past week-ends with the misrepresentations made on this point both by the hon. Member for Gorbals and his friends—I have always noticed that at the end of the meetings people have come up to me and said, "There is a case of that kind here, and I think it is shameful"—or something of that kind. The fact of the matter is, people do think it is unjust that men or women should draw unemployment benefit as a sort of subsidy. They feel the injustice of it, and while those same people would greet with joy a decision of the Government to increase the amount of unemployment benefit, and make other changes for the welfare of those who are really unemployed and looking for work, they would regard this Bill, if it is properly worked out, as a Bill which they can welcome, because it takes away from the working class as a
whole the general accusation that they want everything for nothing. They do feel that, and in spite of the sweet smile with which the hon. Member for Gorbals greets my remark, I may say that I think I have given a better description of the moral outlook of the workers than he did in his speech this afternoon. I think a decent working man or working woman, a decent working girl or working lad, would regard what he has said as misrepresenting entirely the view they take as to the receipt of unemployment benefit. That we would like to see more money going into the workers' houses can anybody doubt? But taking money for one purpose when you are not really entitled to it on that ground is a thing which makes unemployment benefit, or any form of State assistance, demoralising in itself and like the hated system of the Poor Law. Naturally, those who would favour Poor Law methods would be opposed to any effort to put this matter on a proper basis by going carefully into the question of how to prevent anomalies without damaging the great masses of workers who are now drawing benefit, and who are fully entitled to it, and who would, if we had our way, draw still more.

Sir ROBERT ASKE: Naturally, those who are so closely affected by unemployment insurance cannot regard this question from the same point of view as those who live in more congenial surroundings. Any representatives of the depressed areas, particularly those north of the Humber, have to regard very critically any Measure dealing with a revision of the terms or conditions of unemployment insurance. I feel when we are dealing with the elimination of anomalies, it is necessary, in the first place, to be satisfied that the elimination is to be on a fair and equitable basis, and that anomalies are not merely being regarded from one point of view, that is the point of view of anomalies at present existing in favour of insured people, and ignoring altogether the anomalies which exist against the employers. There must be equity and justice in this matter. Therefore, I approach this matter, in the first place, by asking whether there are any serious anomalies of the kind within the preamble of this Bill which ought to have
been included, and which are not included in the Bill.
Of the four classes -which are mentioned in the Bill two of them deal with the conditions of normal employment. Therefore, we may take, as a test, the transitional period, which deals with the point as to whether a person is normally employed in insurable work. In my submission, that is a genuine anomaly. It is an anomaly of administration, because, when we approach the question as to whether a man is normally employed in insurable work, and apply that test in an area such as we find in the north-east of England, Lancashire, the West Riding of Yorkshire, South Wales, and Scotland we find that there has never been normal conditions there for the last 10 years. Consequently, we have to regard this question from the point of view of dealing with an abnormal situation the whole time.
I will take as an illustration the industry with which I am most familiar, the shipbuilding industry. In that industry I find that during the last 10 years the normal condition has been unemployment to the extent of 30 per cent., and at the present time it is no less than 64 per cent. On the north-east coast and Scotland it is 63 per cent. and it is 61 per cent. in Wales. Under those conditions, when addressing ourselves to the question as to whether an applicant is normally engaged in an insurable employment, I ask what test would hon. Members apply. Obviously, the test would be that any man who is unemployed in a trade of that kind, who has spent his life in that trade, who has regularly registered during the period of unemployment, is a man who is normally unemployed and is normally engaged in insurable employment. What is the test which is, in fact, applied? Instead of every man in those areas under those conditions being regarded as prima facie normally engaged in insurable work, the test laid down by the umpire and regularly acted upon by the court of referees is that when a claimant has had no insurable employment for a long period a presumption arises that he has ceased normally to be employed in such an employment as would make him an employed person.
If one is looking for anomalies in the administration, there is one of the most
glaring anomalies to be found. Fancy in a place where the normal condition is 30 per cent. of unemployed, and the present condition is nearly 65 per cent., saying that the presumption is that these people are not normally engaged in insurable work. This is a most serious matter. If we address ourselves to the situation as it has existed during the last two years since the Bill was introduced dealing with the condition of not genuinely seeking work, we can plainly see what has happened by the concrete figures given by the Ministry of Labour. In the Tyne area in three months at the beginning of 1928 the number of claims disallowed on the ground of not being normally employed in insurable work was 65; in 1929 in the first six months of that year the number of claims disallowed on that ground was 79; and, after the passing of the Government Bill abolishing the not-genuinely-seeking-work condition, we find that the number of claims disallowed in three months on that ground in this year was no less than 2,007. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame!"]
Of course, it is a shame, because it is obvious that what has been done is to apply the not-genuinely-seeking-work condition under another name, to keep these men out of benefit, men who have spent their lives in this particular trade, who have never done a hand's turn at any other trade, and who have maintained their registration throughout. The only reason why they are not working and not regularly working at their trade is that there has never been less than 30 per cent. of them unemployed, and there is now more than 60 per cent. of the men in that trade unemployed. That is the situation as I know it from the point of view of those unemployed men. I heard the promise of the Minister that this matter to which I have referred was to be brought before the commission, but there is nothing in the interim report about it, and therefore I would like to ask the Minister what is the position? Why is it that these anomalies have not been dealt with? It is not necessary for the Government to have a report about a matter of this kind, because the Minister of Labour and the Parliamentary Secretary represent constituencies which are situated in this great ship-building area,
any they know as much about it as any person in the country.
I wish to press upon the Minister the urgent need of removing this anomaly, and I press it all the more because it is not really a matter which affects only the unemployed people. These are the depressed areas of the country, and their situation is absolutely critical. They are at present struggling for existence. In those areas the ship-building berths are bare, and work is getting more scarce instead of more plentiful. I am afraid it will be worse within the next three months than it has been in the past, and, in this state of affairs, what is the result of these men being disallowed benefit? What will be the result if a lot more of the people mentioned in this Bill are disallowed benefit? Obviously, the result particularly in those cases must be that these men will have to apply for public assistance. I always understood that it is a Liberal principle that the able-bodied poor should be a charge on State funds and not on local funds, but what is now proposed simply means that by this inequitable administration these men will have to be maintained by their fellows in those localities which are all suffering together. The number of able-bodied poor in the city of Newcastle alone is about 1,700 per week and the cost is about £75,000 a year and that sum has to be raised in rates and falls partly on industry and results in additions to the rents of working men who are already struggling under severe conditions. In my submission, there is an urgent demand for the removal of this anomaly.
I will mention another anomaly arising out of the same transitional condition, and I do not think that I can do better than to read a letter which has been addressed to me with the object of its being brought before the House by a gentleman who has had enormous experience in sitting on courts of referees-He writes:
It is generally agreed that the most serious effect of the present system is the stifling of enterprise on the part of the unemployed. Most of the Tyneside shipyards and factories start work at 7.30 a.m. There is therefore very little chance of an insured worker being started after 8 a.m., and the only steps he can take after 8 a.m. are to register at the Exchange and possibly visit one or two building sites. The rest of the day must be spent either in
loitering or in doing some useful subsidiary work. A number of cases have been brought before courts of referees to decide whether a man who has spent all his working life in insurable occupations has abandoned those occupations because he has, during a period of enforced idleness, tried to do something useful as a side line. The workers' and employers' representatives take a very strong view "—
he means the representatives on the courts of referees—
of these cases, namely, that it is shameful that genuine insured workers should be penalised because they try to help themselves or employ their idle time. But the Umpire and his deputies appear to take a different view, and there is an impression among working men that any effort to help themselves prejudices their right to unemployment benefit.
This view is founded on Section 7, Subsections (1) and (2) of the 1920 Act, as interpreted by a Gilbertian decision of the Umpire which has been printed and circulated. The Umpire in that case held, reversing a court of referees, that an unemployed man who had won two cross-word puzzles in 12 months must be held to be 'not unemployed,' i.e., to have abandoned insurable employment for the uninsured occupation of winning cross-word puzzles.
A typical Tyneside case is the following: A miner who had been unemployed for a considerable time employed part of his spare time selling fish-cakes, the extent of his sales and profit being very small. The case was brought before a court of referees to ascertain whether the man was entitled to benefit, or whether he had abandoned insurable work and taken up fish-cake selling. The workers' and employers' representatives took the view that the man was obviously an insured worker, employing his spare time usefully, and that the case ought not to have been contested. The case was unanimously allowed. The insurance officer appealed, and, presumably on the ratio decidendi of the cross-word puzzle case, a Deputy Umpire disallowed the claimant's benefit for any day on which he sold fishcakes.
One could multiply that illustration many times. Whenever a man becomes tired of being on the dole, and says, "I am going to make a try for myself; I do not want to remain in idleness any longer," and strikes out, sometimes by taking a little shop, sometimes by hawking fruit or vegetables in the street, and is able to carry on, possibly, for three months, or four months, or six months, and then strikes a bad patch, finds be has lost his money and goes to his Employment Exchange, he is told at once that he is no longer employed in insurable work because he has been too energetic in try-
ing to get work and provide a living for himself, and has thereby done for himself so far as unemployment benefit is concerned. I suggest that these are anomalies which ought to have been dealt with in this Bill, and illustrations of them could be given by the score. I feel that we ought to have some assurance from the Government that anomalies which, under the administration of the Acts, deprive these men of benefit which I am sure they were intended to have, will be dealt with, because otherwise it appears to me that this is an entirely lopsided Bill, framed from the point of view, not of rectifying anomalies, but merely of saving money. No one wishes to maintain real anomalies, but there must be a fair sense of justice in any Bill that is brought forward, and, as at present advised, inasmuch as this Bill merely weights the dice against the unemployed man, I do not think it is a fair or a just Bill.

Mr. G. HARDIE: The last speaker has touched upon a great many real, practical difficulties, and has shown an intimate knowledge of what takes place from day to day in the working of the Employment Exchanges. I was interested to hear him point out that there is a tendency for one's views to be tinged according to where he comes from. He implied that he came from an industrial area where unemployment was severe, and that that would tend to tinge one's views. That may be so in some cases, but it is not so in all, because in this House I have heard speeches touching a most human note from hon. Members who came from districts where there was not 1 per cent. of unemployment. It is, surely, one of the great things about an Assembly like this, that, no matter what may be the conditions, an impartial and sane view is generally taken.
The hon. Member's remark in regard to men helping themselves related to a matter which, if anomalies in regard to the application of unemployment insurance were to be dealt with, ought to have been dealt with long ago I have in mind two personal friends, who, being Scottish, were taught in their infancy that it was a crime to become so poor as to require relief from the parish. That feeling is deeply embedded in many Scottish people, and it has the result that men
who are well-to-do, rather than be seen standing in the queue at the bureau, prefer to maintain their independence as long as what they can save lasts; but anyone who does this is immediately penalised.
One of my friends took his savings and started a business. It may be said that to begin a business of which you have no knowledge is bad, and I admit it, but in this case it was not so, because his wife had been in that business. They began this business, and put all their money into it. Then bad trade came, and the usual thing happened; but, when these people, who had saved the fund to the extent of all their savings, came back to the Exchange, they were wiped out, they were unknown. If anomalies are to be dealt with, I should hope that the Minister would deal with anomalies of that kind.
The other ease to which I would refer is that of a family of skilled engineers, and I may say that engineering is the chief industry in my constituency. The two sons went, to Canada on their own savings, and the father, mother and two daughters went to a married daughter in America, all with the idea of maintaining their independence. The two sons found it impossible to get employment in Canada. They spent every halfpenny that they had, and they spent the money that they got for selling everything they had, including their watches, fountain pens, and some micrometers—very expensive instruments. They had everything that the efficient engineer required, and they sold these things, in some cases for coppers, though they had cost pounds. These fellows were compelled to come back. The father and mother spent what they had living with their married daughter, but the unemployment cloud fell there, and they too had to come back. These were all constant contributors to unemployment insurance, in the case of the father from the inception of the fund, and in the case of the sons from the day when they entered employment right up to the day when they left this country. Are we to be told that, having shown this enterprise and independence of spirit, and make such efforts to lead an energetic life, they are to be penalised for having made those efforts?
These cases wipe out the cry from the benches opposite that the great majority
of the people who are on the dole, as it is called, do not want to work. One night last week I went to the place of a friend who had advertised for a typist—he wanted three, but he knew he need not ask for more than one—and I saw 4,000, from 16 to 44 years of age, in queues with a policeman regulating them; and yet we are told by some people that a Bill of this kind is wanted to prevent—what? The sponger? How few there are! If there is the sponger, or the individual man or woman who is trying to "put a bit across," is it not the system of society that has created that demoralised type; and, instead of a Bill like this, would it not be better to bring in a Bill designed to raise the moral standard of these people? Instead of trying to get clean out of the mess, we are merely trying to make the mess just a little cleaner in order that it may be a little more endurable.
8.0 p.m.
An hon. Member opposite mentioned the question of reduction of benefit, but I know that he does not understand poverty, which is what we are dealing with to-day. There is a constant parrot cry about people being "available for work." The hon. Member who suggested reduction of benefit knows nothing of what is meant by poverty, or living on a wage; he has always had the wherewithal to get what he wanted; and that is why we hear that type of speech. Some people think that, when an unemployed man and his wife and children are given 29s. a week, that is a great sum, but it is still poverty. There is the question of clothes, boots, and all the other things outside a mere bread-and-butter existence. You are not dealing with poverty by unemployment insurance. All that you are trying to do is to help a little in what is called the basis of existence. None of the people who are receiving unemployment insurance are living the lives that they lived when they were employed. I am sorry that hon. Members should be returned to this House to misrepresent the facts of the case. We have had sad stories about the baby in the pram. I have some personal knowledge of cases of that kind, where women who are engaged in industry are to be deprived of benefit simply because they happen to be married. We have
made an insurance contract with these people. If we do not carry out the contract, if regulations are sought to put the system upon what is called an insurance basis, upon the basis of earnings, what becomes of the scheme? We have the case mentioned of the man who is said to be working and earning sufficient in two days and a night. That ceases to be insurance. You are now putting it on another basis.
Last Monday morning I caught the train at 1.10 a.m. at St. Paul's. In the carriage there were nine people, all pressmen except myself. We got talking about this Bill. They were very friendly. The first man who spoke was an operator on a linotype machine. He said that he earned £7 10s. a week. Another earned £5 18s. They said: "The two fellows at the end of the carriage are labourers, who carry the paper, and so on. They get £2 15s. Does it mean that because we have more wages, that they are going to get all the benefits, or does it mean that we are never going to draw any benefits unless we get down to their level?" I shall be told that the Bill does not seek to do that. It is not what is intended by those who bring in the Bill, but it is the interpretation that will be put upon it. This House has had enough sad experience to know that while the House may have very good intentions and may put them as logically as they can in a Bill, when it comes to interpretation in the courts, even in the Court of Referees, and by the committee that is to be set up, it is a different matter.
If the present Act is not what is desired, let us amend it. I shall be told that the thing is far too difficult and complex for us to bring in an amendment to the Act, that will work. I have seen much more difficult things than we are facing to-day got over in this House by an amendment of an Act. I hope that before the House has done with this Bill there will be a great many changes so far as its structure is concerned. The Minister of Labour said that it was not the money that they were trying to save. She could not give the figures, but she said it was not a question of money. They were considering, the moral side. If we have had loss of morals because of the system, surely it is a question of changing the system.
We are not going to make people any more moral by putting more restrictions upon them. If that argument were carried to its logical conclusion, we should have a policeman at all our doors. It is not what is in the Bill, but what the interpretation will be, that matters.
I have always fought against work that ought to be done by this House going outside. We held up the Electricity Act in Committee for three days on that question. Is the House so incapable of dealing with its work that it has to start pushing its work outside. I hope that the House will not permit its business to be put outside in the fashion proposed by the Bill. We ought to be able to deal with our business, or we ought to tell the public that we cannot do it. I do not know that the people who will be called upon to do this work outside the House will be any better able to do it than we are. If they have special ability, why has it been withheld? Has it been withheld in order that this work could be put outside the province of this House? It seems as if the working classes are not to have justice. The employers are to be present. I suppose they are to be there to see whether anything is done wrong. I do not see any ground for the employers being present. Many of the so-called captains of industry have failed, and they ought to be in the dock to answer the charge of having failed.
The right hon. Member for North Cornwall (Sir D. Maclean) drew a pathetic picture. He said that if it had not been for the benefit that had been poured out, there would have been riots and revolution. He declared that as a result of the pouring out of so much money not a pane of glass had been broken. He is wrong. He suggests that the pouring out of this money has been a good thing. It has not. It would have been far better if the nation had taken into its hands the industries that should have been reorganised, and had kept the people in a higher standard of living. The right hon. Gentleman said that it had been proved that people were this, that and the other. It does not matter what you may prove. You have to face the fact that there are people who cannot get work. We have to give them a job, or put them on public assistance if they
are not insured. It is said that we shall save money. We shall not save a penny. These people have to be kept. I challenge the people who talk to be logical. If they are not going to keep these people, they must do the next thing; put them in the lethal chamber. They are afraid to do that. They are afraid even to think of that.
In my own constituency, I have tried to find out the enormity of the offences that are described in this Bill. It may be that I have a very decent constituency. Compared with what is set forth in the Bill, I must have a very decent constituency. I inquired into two or three cases. I spent a day going into what is called the undermind to find out the facts. When we got to the bottom of the thing, it was the biggest mare's nest that had ever been raised. We ought not to base any Bill upon an unknown quantity. We have asked questions, but we have received no figures. It is all assumption. Take the printer's men, of whom we hear so much. How many men are there engaged on all the Sunday newspapers in Britain? The number is a mere bagatelle. What about the babies in the pram? How many are there? We are told that there are many cases. When the Conservative party were in office, why did they not try to deal with these so-called anomalies? They are trying to get the Labour party to pull the nuts out of the fire for them. I object to that. No one will play the monkey trick on me. The hon. and gallant Member for Kelvin-grove (Major Elliot) was wrong in his Scottish history in what he said about a certain king. We all know that a man or a woman has to die in a certain way before their ghost can come back. That particular king did not die under those conditions. He was not good enough even for that.
The hon. and gallant Member dealt with what he called the constitutional issue. When he was asked what he meant, he said that he was in favour of the Bill. That is the attitude the Opposition are taking up. They are trying by this Bill to do that which they had not the courage to do themselves, and at the same time they are trying to discredit our party for doing what they think ought to be done. If I were a member of the present Government, I would rather come on to the back benches than take any
part in trying to place on the Statute Book anything that is not based upon true figures. Until we get those figures we have no right to take such action. When we talk about anomalies on the part of the unemployed, let the anomalies also be dealt with from the other side. Then it will not be an Anomalies Bill, but an amendment of the original Act.

Sir GERVAIS RENTOUL: There was one statement of the hon. Member with which all of us would be in agreement, namely, that the Bill would be unnecessary if you could create a higher moral standard and change human nature. He went on to say that the spongers were, in his judgment, very few. That may be so compared with the total number of the unemployed. I do not think anyone has ever suggested that the abuses are, comparatively speaking, more than a small number, judged by the total figures. Nevertheless, actually they are not a small number, because we know that, in the opinion of the Royal Commission, and indeed according to the statement of the Government in the Memorandum to the Bill, it is hoped to save at least £5,000,000. That is a large sum and represents a great many cases, although £5,000,000 may be very small in comparison with the enormous expenditure that is going on in connection with unemployment insurance. But certainly the Government have had ample warning that these anomalies were likely to arise. They were warned in 1929, when the proposal was brought forward and an alteration was made in regard to the genuinely seeking work Clause, that the words which it was proposed to be substituted might in themselves give rise to some of the very anomalies which have now been created and with which this Bill is endeavouring to deal.
I certainly have hesitated before taking part in this discussion, because it seems to me that, while one has no option but to support the Bill, and, if necessary, I shall be prepared to do so with my vote, one does so with very little enthusiasm. The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) criticised the Bill, because he considered it did far too much. I criticise it because it seems to me to do far too little. But, inasmuch as the professed object of the Bill is to deal with certain anomalies which have been revealed by a
Royal Commission established by the Government itself, I feel that one cannot do otherwise than give it support. At the same time, it seems to me to do very little to grapple with the real facts of the situation, and those facts it is impossible to exaggerate. It may be a step in the right direction, however weak, feeble and tottering that step may be. It is something that the Government are no longer able to pretend that anomalies and abuses do not exist to an extent which, in their judgment, requires urgent legislative action, in justice to the enormous number of persons who are genuinely insured and who, therefore, have a direct interest in the whole scheme being made actuarially sound, and in justice also, in my view, to the country, which is faced, as we know on the most unquestionable authority, with the terrible dangers of an unbalanced Budget. [Interruption.] Hon. Members may scoff, but it is difficult to exaggerate those dangers, not only in their effect on what are called the more prosperous classes, but in their effect on the trade and industry of the country as a whole which, in its turn, would be bound to react with the gravest consequences upon the workers. Unless, therefore, we hold the view of the hon. Member for Gorbals that apparently all those who pay taxes may be classified as the rich and all who do not pay taxes are the poor, and that it is perfectly legitimate and proper to take from the one in order to give to the other, I feel that not only this Bill but something a good deal more drastic than this Bill is urgently required.
The main reason why one hesitates to support it is that it only touches the fringe of the question. According to its express terms, it only proposes to deal with certain anomalies, and those by no means the gravest existing to-day, as we know from the Report of the Royal Commission. The grave anomalies which the Bill does not touch in any way to my mind are, firstly, the inclusion in an insurance system at all of persons who cannot by any stretch of imagination properly come within it. That seems to me the gravest of all anomalies that ought to be dealt with. Secondly, I feel that it is a grave anomaly in that it is possible for anyone to receive by way of bene-
fit sums closely approximating to the amount that they would receive if they were in full employment. That is a grave situation which has been emphasised by the Royal Commission and to which it repeatedly refers in its Report. I am referring to cases where no contributions have been made and, consequently, where a person does not properly come within the insurance scheme. The Report points out that one of the things to be guarded against is the discouragement to industry that may be created by an unemployment insurance scheme unless it is properly based. There are two passages in the interim Report which are worth repeating. The first is this:
One of the cardinal principles which was present in the minds of those who framed the original scheme in 1911 was that State provision for the unemployed should not be such as to create unemployment and that it should, so far as possible, be associated with measures tending to diminish unemployment by improving the organisation of the employment market. The prevention of unemployment is of more importance than its relief, and unemployment insurance should be subordinate to the encouragement of industry to reduce unemployment.
That is a very important passage which is frequently apt to be lost sight of in debates on this subject. This is the other passage:
Some significance must attach to a proportion of one in fourteen out of work in a period of active trade and, in other countries, of abounding prosperity, in a class of industries from which have been excluded not only the industries adversely affected by the War or by the decline in exports but also those in which there is a special problem of unemployment arising from internal organisation. Since it persists after the influence of the transient effects of the War has been excluded, it must be associated with some more permanent condition of British industry, possibly in part with the existence of the Unemployment Insurance Scheme itself.
Therefore, one reason in particular why I should feel some hesitation in supporting the Bill is that it seems to me to run counter to these cardinal principles. The hon. Baronet the Member for Smethwick (Sir O. Mosley) complained that the Bill was in reality a Measure of economy. That may be to some extent true, but it is essential, in the interests of the country, and in the interests particularly of those coming within the Unemployment Insurance Scheme, that we should have economy on a real scale and not a mere tinkering with the situation. It is
well to remember that the mast drastic regulations made under the Bill could only save under 5 per cent. of the total cost of unemployment. Even if the Bill is passed into law and is operated to the full extent that is possible, unemployment will still cost the nation over £90,000,000 a year more than the contributions of industry provide. That is a very grave situation. Yet the cost of improper claims, according to the estimates of the Government actuary, is possibly as high as £13,500,000. Many of us have considerable doubts as to whether the Government are really in earnest in this matter, for the simple reason that practically all the anomalies with which it is proposed to deal under the Bill have been very well known for a very long time and have been frequently pointed out, and it needed no Royal Commission to call attention to them. If it was desired, they could have been dealt with long ago.

Mr. QUIBELL: Why did you not deal with them?

Sir G. RENTOUL: It is becoming rather an old trick on the part of many hon. Members opposite when in an awkward situation to say, "What did you do? "or "Why did you not do it?" That really is beside the point. To-day the House is concerned with the present situation and not with what was done or was omitted to be done in bygone times. Furthermore, if that question is asked, one is justified in pointing out that when the Conservative party were in office, the unemployment figures were somewhere in the neighbourhood of 1,000,000 and that they are now over 2,500,000. Therefore, the anomalies have proportionately increased, apart altogether from having, in many instances, been directly created by the actions of His Majesty's Government in regard to the operation of the genuinely-seeking-work Clause and in other directions.
My point is that if the Government were really in earnest in desiring to deal with this matter, it is extraordinary that they should have thought it necessary to appoint a Royal Commission at all in order to discover things which, as I say, were well known. They could have established, for example, their Advisory Committee long ago. The three-party conference on unemployment was, in
effect, an advisory committee which the Government called into being, and then when it seemed to be on the point of producing some practical recommendations, those recommendations were ignored. All these circumstances fill-one's mind with a considerable amount of suspicion as to the sincerity of the Government in approaching this matter. What guarantee have we that the Minister really intends to act? The Advisory Committee, as its name implies, is merely advisory in character, but the whole of the executive action under this Bill must rest upon the Minister, and the Minister alone. Have we any guarantee that she will carry out the advice that is given her by the committee which is to be established under the Bill? Even if she does, it is quite apparent that there can be no saving in the best circumstances until late in the autumn, and in this sense the Advisory Committee seems to be but a new device for delay. The Minister has six weeks in which to set up the committee, "and after that there will be a long procedure of regulations and consultations, and then the report has to lie on the Table of both Houses for 21 days. How can the Government justify such a state of affairs in the emergency with which the country is faced to-day?
It appears to me, although I see no option but to support the Bill, that it is only introduced in order that the Government may save their face. It does nothing to deal with the real anomalies to which I have referred, and we are told that nothing will be done until the final report of the Royal Commission is produced. But surely that in itself is a great subterfuge, because the Government have made it quite apparent already that they do not intend to act upon the report of the Royal Commission, and consequently it is a mere waste of time for it to continue its discussions. We may not at the same time, for those reasons, have much faith in the efficacy of the Bill, but nevertheless we are prepared to support it, because we shall be reluctant to seem to-put any obstacle in the way of even the most tardy repentance on the part of the present Government. We are willing, therefore, that the Government should make this experiment. The Minister herself does not put it any higher. We are willing to give the Government, in effect, this last chance to put an end to what is
now recognised as a growing national scandal.

Mr. MAXTON: I beg to move to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words:
this House declines to proceed further with this Bill on the grounds that it removes from Parliament effective control of the conditions under which benefits are paid; defines too widely the classes of unemployed whose benefit may be removed or reduced; creates more anomalies than it removes; jeopardises the benefits of thousands of unemployed persons; establishes an advisory committee on which there are only three working-class representatives out of nine; introduces the principle of differential treatment of casual and seasonal workers and married women in varying trades and districts; fails to deal with the abuses which the unemployed suffer, such as withholding benefit from those who have been employed in non-insurable occupations, or who have emigrated for a period, or who have reached pensionable age; ignores the need to increase benefits, in view of the prolonged period of unemployment and the consequent intensification of hardships experienced by so many working-class families; and also fails to provide benefits for agricultural and other workers at present excluded from unemployment insurance.
The Amendment which stands in my name and the names of several of my hon. Friends is for the rejection of the Bill. I have listened very closely to the general discussion on the Second Reading, and every speech has made me more convinced of the Tightness of my action in putting this Amendment upon the Paper. I hope that before the proceedings close to-night the Government will agree that the opposition to the Bill is so keen, and the support so tardy, that they will decide not to proceed any further with it and so save me and other of my hon. Friends from the necessity of going into the Lobby against it, which we certainly shall do if the Government propose to proceed with it.
Members of the Labour party will agree that the Amendment is a very brief summary for what we stood for with reference to the treatment of the unemployed during the General Election, and we are here to try to implement the position we took up at the General Election rather than to give our support to a Measure which was never contemplated at any time by any section of the Labour movement, never contemplated by any trade union, and never contemplated in
our political philosophy. It has only arisen out of the exigencies of the present Parliamentary situation and represents to us a surrender of great principles in the face of one of the meanest, ill-natured agitations that has ever taken place in this country on the part of the rich against the most defenceless of the poor. We used to be told that a Socialist was a man, who, having no possessions of his own, was grieved at the wealth and envious of the better-off sections of the community. That was never true of me. I have never envied any man's possessions. I have never felt any reason to envy any man's material possessions. If it were true that the Socialist envied the wealthy man his riches it might be a grievous sight, it might be contemptible, but it would not be half so contemptible as the sight of the wealthy man envying the poor man his miserable pittance, and that is the sole motive power that is behind the agitation which has created a Parliamentary position that puts a Labour Government in the humiliating position it is in to-day in introducing a Measure of this description.
I am sorry. I had intended, in dealing with this matter, to maintain that calm argumentative method which is recognised as the correct thing in this House, and I am sorry that I have opened in a tone which is otherwise. To those who have put down this Amendment there is not one solitary scrap in the Bill in which we can feel any satisfaction, and nothing that we can defend. It has been brought in to remove anomalies. The Labour movement came into existence to remove anomalies, and in that sense it is in line with the outlook of the party. But the anomaly to which we called attention when we were propounding our philosophy was the anomaly of a few thousands of people at the top end of society drawing huge incomes, owning large aggregations of capital, rendering no valuable social service, living in luxury and in idleness, using wealth in great abundance but never actively creating one pennyworth of wealth themselves; this small group at one end of the social scale in this position of wealth and the mass of toilers at the other end always on the verge of starvation and, when permitted to toil, only getting a bare subsistence and nothing more. That was the
great outstanding anomaly, but inside that great anomaly of class division were many smaller anomalies for which no justification could be advanced. Good, genuine useful people living on the verge of starvation and imbecile and dissolute people living in luxury and ease.
Our social system is packed full of anomalies. A Labour Government in office says, "We must remove anomalies. There are some of the unemployed people, only a few out of about 2,500,000, who are getting a few shillings more than we ever intended them to get. They are doing it under the law it is true, by just a little straining of the law which we in our wisdom had never contemplated when we passed the legislation." Do not we know that there are chartered accountants and lawyers, Income Tax experts, making huge incomes in this country by doing nothing else than advising wealthy people how to dodge their proper share of the Income Tax. Talk about anomalies! The Labour Government say "We are going to start among the pennies and the halfpennies and the shillings of the poor." It reminds me of a story to which I am indebted to my hon. Friend the Private Secretary to the Prime Minister many years ago—I hope it will not embarrass him in his official duties if I tell the story—of the Scotsman who came to London for the first time and asked to be directed to a particular place. As it happened the man he asked was afflicted with a stutter and after taking half-an-hour to give the directions he said: "Jus-s-a-t a m-m-m-minute. There are s-s-seven m-m-millions of p-people in L-London; why p-p-p-pick m-me?" In the capitalist system of society there are "seven millions or more in office" looking for anomalies to redress, so why pick this?
If the Government had made up their mind to remove anomalies, why not let the House of Commons do it themselves? The hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot), who was supported by the hon. Baronet the Member for Smethwick (Sir O. Mosley), the leader of the New party, supported the view that it was a good idea for Parliament to devolve its responsibilities to other bodies such as the committee contemplated in the Bill for the removal of these anomalies. He made a comparison with the Broadcasting Corporation and
the Electricity Commissioners, and other statutory bodies, and said that it was a good development in our Parliamentary system which he hoped would be extended. The hon. Member for Smethwick supported this with the qualification that it all depends on what they are going to do. My hon. Friends have omitted this fact. It may be that this House will have to devolve many of its responsibilities in many directions, although I say quite frankly that I am in complete antagonism to any attempt to remove things out of the realm of public discussion and public agitation and to deny Members of the House of Commons the right to discuss the affairs of corporations and other bodies in this House. The remedies for our Parliamentary system are not to be found in the direction of less democracy but in the direction of far more democracy than we have just now, and every hon. Member knows that our troubles in this House do not arise because power is distributed through too many hands, but because, in actual practice, in this Chamber power is concentrated in far too few hands. The one man who is responsible for the financial affairs of this Parliament can dominate and dictate and direct the whole policy of Parliament.
I hope that we will not proceed any further in the direction provided in this Measure, that of a greater bureaucracy and autocracy, but that on every occasion we will endeavour to distribute responsibility and activity among as many people as possible instead of into as few hands as possible. I want the hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove and the hon. Member for Smethwick to consider this. It is not a parallel case to say to a particular body of men, "You are to run the Broadcasting Corporation," and to another body of men, "You are to run the Electricity Commission." What we are doing in this case is to say, "Look here! Here is a very difficult legislative job to be performed. It is too difficult for us, the House of Commons, who have been elected to legislate. We will pass over the job of legislation, our work, to the shoulders of you nine irresponsible people." To me it is a very terrifying step that the Government are taking. We say to this commission in so many words: "You nine men have to survey this married women's problem. You have to survey this problem of the seasonal
workers; you have to survey the problem of the intermittent workers; you have to solve the problem of the occasional workers; and to legislate, legislate, to decide which married women are to get benefit, in which districts married women are to get benefit, whose husbands are in such a position as to exclude their wives from getting benefit, and which are not."
You say, regarding the seasonal workers, the fishermen of Stornoway, the fish gutters of Lewis, the hop-pickers of Kent, "The problem is too complicated for us in Parliament to legislate about; so you nine men who have never done anything in the way of legislative work before"—that is one of the qualifications they must have—"you are to legislate, because the subject is too difficult for us experts." Does the hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove support that kind of thing?

Major ELLIOT: If the hon. Member had done me the honour of listening to my speech, he would have realised that at the end of that speech I said I believed that when we had tried this method we would ourselves decide to reform the insurance system on the basis of insurance.

Mr. MAXTON: The hon. and gallant Member spoke on behalf of his party, and I interrupted, and the hon. and gallant Member said, in effect: "Oh, I am going to vote for this. I think it is a great Bill," and he said that the whole party was going to vote for it.

Major ELLIOT: We were discussing the question of the demand by the Government for powers to deal with a particular case, on the Government's responsibility, and I said that I was not prepared to withhold those powers from the Government. I stand by that. But I also said, at the end of my speech, that I am certain that the demand for reform of this scheme will be paramount, and that by the autumn, in spite of all the difficulties, we shall be driven to reforming it.

Mr. MAXTON: But in the meantime the Labour Government, the Conservative party and the Liberal party are all going to walk into the Lobby to-night to hand over their legislative duties to nine people whom they do not know, and
they are going to ask those nine people to legislate on matters that will affect the lives and livelihood of an unknown number of men and women. I say that that is sheer irresponsibility. I am glad that I am in the position of at least being able not to commit myself to such a fantastic act.
Then there is the question of economy. We have had that rubbed into us at every turn—the terrible debt that is hanging over this Insurance Fund. It is what? It is not 2 per cent. of the whole National Debt. It has taken 19 years to build up, due from the beginning to bad actuarial calculations. I am not blaming the actuaries, because actuaries cannot work unless there are statistics available. There were no statistics available in this case. All that was available was the hopes, the optimisms of the successive Ministers who have stood at the Box, every one of whom has gone on the assumption that the capitalist system had within itself the powers of resuscitation. Always they have gone on the assumption that things were going to be better. We had it yesterday from the Secretary for Mines. He said, "The outlook is very depressing for the mining industry in every direction, but we hope that if better times come along there will be an increase of wages available for miners under this Bill." But the indications are that things are going to be worse.
This Unemployment Insurance Fund is in this debt because successive Parliaments and successive Ministers have failed or refused to recognise the obvious fact, that the industrial and economic system under which we have lived in the past is not fitting the facts of to-day, and that the contradictions are becoming greater and greater and will end in collapse. Time and again I have argued that we should recognise that fact and not wait for the revival of this system, but should cut into the middle of it and start creating a new system that will work. We regard this as being a trivial playing with a serious situation and an attempt to save a nation in dire distress by imposing starvation on the most helpless section of the community.
I want to answer one point that has been raised two or three times in these Debates—that if you stand here and support the unemployed there is something
wrong, that you are bidding for votes, that you are auctioning for votes. But hon. Members opposite can stand in their places week after week and defend landlordism or banking, and they are doing their duty as statesmen. They can defend any vested interest in this country and they are doing it with the highest sense of duty. But if we stand up and defend the unemployed it is corrupt and we are bidding for votes, and we have no thought in our minds but the number of people who are going to vote for us. I like to get votes behind me, for then I assume that these people stand for the political philosophy I am propounding. The interest of the unemployed man is as legitimate and as clean an interest as any other interest voiced in this House. Therefore, quite unblushingly, I oppose this Bill.
I argue that the Government ought not to proceed with it. I would like to see this unemployment insurance machinery extended and developed and used as a lever for the creation of a new social order. What does the unemployment figure mean? It means that there is available social leisure which has become concentrated on 2,500,000 people, so as to cause them intense misery and so as to create national danger and difficulty. In the very first speech that I made in this House I said that our problem in these days was not one of creating unnecessary work; that our problem was how best to distribute the available social leisure. Nearly every one of these so-called anomalies represent the crude beginnings of the distribution of leisure.
What about the terrible case of the Cardiff dockers, for instance—the 6,000 men in Cardiff? I am not quoting the figures exactly. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) used the case, and it has been repeated in other quarters of the House and the precise figures do not matter. We have this position. At the Cardiff docks there are so many thousands of men, say, 1,000 or 2,000 more than the number required for the work at the docks. The dockers have agreed that the work available shall go round the whole lot, so that all shall have so many days work in the week and on the other days draw unemployment benefit. This has been held up as something immoral. I would like to find out before
this discussion finishes exactly whether the House is taking its stand for this Bill on the ground of morality, or on the ground of economy, because the two things have become so intermixed that I cannot be quite clear as to which is the leading motive.
9.0 p.m.
The dockers in Cardiff decided, through a very strong trade union organisation and by agreement with the employers, that, instead of having two-thirds of their men permanently employed all the days of the week, and one-third permanently idle, the available work should be shared by all and the available wages should be shared by all, so that nobody would be demoralised by long periods of idleness, and everybody would pay into the Insurance Fund and so feel that when they got unemployment benefit they were not getting anything to which they were not entitled. And that is an anomaly, forsooth! That is demoralising. To me, it is the wisest way of dealing with the unemployment problem as it presents itself to-day. If the Government would take a tip from the Cardiff dockers, instead of being advised by God knows whom, if they attempted to extend and develop and regularise this whole system, by seeing that everybody got a share of the work and everybody got a share of the wealth and everybody got a share of the leisure—then you would begin to get some faint embryonic form of the social conception that will abolish our troubles of to-day and lead us into national prosperity—real prosperity—in the future.
But this is a retreat. This is a reaction. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Cornwall (Sir D. Maclean), as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Springburn (Mr. G. Hardie), claps the nation on the back because at the cost of this money it has purchased freedom from industrial disputes, from riot, from possible rebellion, and suggests that it is cheap at the price. Well, I do not know that this quietness, this peace, is altogether a matter for congratulation for the working-class, but I want to point out to the economists opposite and to the economists on our benches this most extraordinary fact—that at this period in the nation's history, when the unemployment figure is at a higher point than ever before, the
prison population is lower than ever before. Drinking among the people is at a lower point than ever before. Our vital statistics are tending upwards, and last year we had this most amazing fact which I want hon. Members to consider in their minds when they think about the problem of the married women and unemployment—the attendance in the elementary schools last year was at a higher point than ever before. For the whole year round, the average attendance in the Scottish schools was at a higher point than ever before in the history of Scotland.
These are tremendous figures. If, in spite of industrial stagnation, in spite of an obstinate unemployment problem, you are maintaining your people in life and in health; if crime is diminishing in your midst; if there are public evidences that parental responsibility is higher to-day than ever before—then indeed you are purchasing it very very cheaply. Do not ruin and destroy it for the sake of a problematic saving of £6,500,000. Remember this. Some of you seem to think that 17s. is a terrible lot of money. I want you to recognise this interesting fact, that the unemployed man poor, demoralised, disheartened, as you allege, maintains himself on 17s. more cheaply than the nation has ever been able to maintain him inside gaol, asylum or poor-house. Get that figure burned into your minds. Get that fact burned into your minds when you are talking about demoralisation. When you are talking about the unemployed or about economy, ask yourself if this is not, after all, a very, very sound economy on the national Exchequer and on the general, national body politic.
I apologise for having spoken longer than I had intended, but I am consoled by the recollection that we have suspended the Eleven o'clock Rule and that, therefore, no one will be excluded through my rather unusually long intervention, but there is one other fact to which I want to call attention. This unemployment insurance scheme, since the immediate post-war period, has been a hybrid scheme. It has been partly insurance and partly social assistance. There is a great shout of "Make it one or the other." Why should you? This is the system that has been proved by experience to work. There is a case for
making it the one thing or the other, but what there is not a case for is to do as this Bill attempts to do, and that is to keep it a hybrid scheme, part social assistance and part insurance, and give the workers the worst of both ends: Do not give them the full rights of insured persons; do not give them decent public assistance. I am content with the hybrid scheme. I am content with a continuance of the hybrid scheme until we have decent social assistance; and, as long as I am here, I am going to use my influence as a Member of this House to see that the workers get the best of both aspects of it, the insurance aspect and the social assistance aspect.

Mr. BROCKWAY: I beg to second the Amendment.
I have to confess that it is not with pleasure that I second the Amendment, because I appreciate that it is a very serious thing for a member of a party to move the rejection of a Bill which the Government of his party have introduced. It is only because I share the views which have been expressed by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) and the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) as to the dangerous results of this Bill upon the unemployed and upon the working class that I feel it absolutely essential to take this step. I need not re-emphasize the point which the hon. Member for Bridge-ton made regarding the origins of this Measure. It arose from an agitation which began in the Conservative party and in the Conservative Press, and which was subsequently supplemented by an agitation in the Liberal party, for economy, and it was that agitation which led the Government to appoint a Royal Commission upon this matter. The Government, when they appointed that Royal Commission, made two mistakes, in our view—first, in the personnel of the Commission and, second, in the terms of reference to the Commission. Both the personnel and the terms of reference invited the kind of report which the Commission has produced.
When that report was issued the Government said, "We will not consider certain aspects of this report until there is a final report, but in the meanwhile we will deal with certain anomalies." Our first objection to the Bill which is actually before us is that the anomalies.
which are dealt with in the Bill all refer to abuses which the unemployed are supposed to commit, and nothing is done within the terms of the Bill to remove the far greater abuses from which the unemployed suffer. We are told that we can be certain that the Advisory Committee which will consider this matter will not propose reforms unfair or unfavourable to the unemployed, because that committee will have among its members three members of the Trades Union Congress. We welcome the representation of the Trades Union Congress upon a committee of this kind, if there is to be such a committee, but we cannot forget that these three representatives of the Trades Union Congress will only be three representatives in nine, and their influence will be balanced by the official representatives of the employers.
Of the other three representatives on that committee, one will be appointed by the Treasury, and the evidence of the Treasury before the Royal Commission was more unsympathetic to the unemployed than the evidence of the most diehard Tory; another will be appointed by the Ministry of Labour, and with the best will in the world we cannot say honestly that the attitude of the Ministry of Labour has been sympathetic to the unemployed during the administration of this Government; while the third will be an independent chairman, and if we are to judge from every commission and committee which the Government have so far appointed, the only thing which independence means is that the chairman will be opposed to the interests of the working class and to the point of view of the unemployed. Therefore, we say that this committee will be no safeguard to the unemployed even under a Labour Government, but one cannot consider it only from the point of view of a Labour Government. This House cannot possibly be asked to legislate in terms of the maintenance of a Labour Government. Supposing we had a Conservative Government in office, what even under a Labour Government will be a committee which will be unsympathetic to the unemployed, under a Conservative Government would certainly be a committee which was anti-unemployed from beginning to last. That is a dangerous proposition which, I put it to my colleagues in the Labour party,
ought not to be receiving their support in the Division Lobbies.
I want to add to that, that we oppose this Bill also because of the grave abuses from which the unemployed suffer, and to which no reference is made in the Bill. I will not describe them in detail, because I do not want to speak at length, but I would point out the abuse of the man of 64 who is receiving a benefit of 17s. a week and who, as soon as he becomes 65, loses that benefit and receives a pension of 10s. Everyone of us who has knowledge of unemployment conditions in our constituencies knows how wide is the suffering which is caused to the unemployed by that condition. We take the case of the man who has worked in a non-insurable trade or who has emigrated to the Colonies for a period. I had in my own constituency last week a young man who had contributed for three years to the unemployment insurance scheme, and had never drawn benefit; he has taken a job for a period in the Dominions, and when he returned here he was denied benefit. If he had not sought a job in the Dominions, and during that period had been a cost upon our own fund, he would have been entitled to benefit. We take the case of the agricultural workers, the domestic workers, the share fishermen and others who are entirely without benefit when they become unemployed. Is there any class in the community to whom the Labour party is more committed than the agricultural workers in this respect?
Why should we wait for a final report from the Royal Commission? If we intended dealing with the problem at all, it should have been one of the first problems to be tackled. In order not to extend my remarks beyond a reasonable time, I will only indicate in brief other anomalies on the side of the suffering unemployed. Where a person is required' to undergo training with an employer as a condition of future employment, he cannot claim benefit. The umpire who gave that decision said:
There is a natural desire to assist claimants in such circumstances, but the statutory authorities are bound by the statutory provisions.
Why in this Bill, when even umpires express such a view, cannot the statutory-provisions be changed? There is the case of persons who perform some action
on one day in the ordinary course of their employment, but owing to some fortuitous circumstances are prevented from working. They are denied benefit. There is the instance of a miner who descends his pat and finds that there is no work that day. He has descended the pit because the official responsible has not put up the notice, and he is denied benefit, even though he receives no employment and no earnings during that day. There are a hundred cases regarding dependants' allowances, which are abuses far more serious than any of those which are in this Bill. There is the case of the child who is deformed, who grows in the course of years beyond the age of 16, and who is a continued burden upon the parents, but the father out of work receives no dependant's allowance for that child. If a man's wife is earning 10s. a week, he may not have dependant's benefit. If she is earning 8s. 11d. a week, he may get the 9s. benefit. If the wife of a claimant is in an institution, and the man is paying 10s. a week, he gets 9s. benefit. If he is paying only 8s. or 9s. he gets nothing. If a child is in an institution, and the man is paying 6s. a week for the maintenance of the child, he gets benefit. If he is paying less than that, he does not even get the 2s. benefit for the child. If a son wholly supports his mother, but does not live with her, he cannot get benefit. If a wife earns 10s. per week in regular work, but has to pay 2s. a week for cleaning materials, her husband gets no benefit for her when unemployed. If she is paid 8s. and the employer pays for the cleaning materials, then the husband will get benefit.
These are instances which everyone of us who has any contact with the unemployed can multiply again and again. How is it that a Labour Government, when they are dealing with anomalies, dare to come before this House with a Bill that only removes, or seeks to remove, anomalies where the unemployed are alleged to be guilty, but does not include a single reference to those anomalies and abuses from which the unemployed suffer? Here is this House of Commons spending to-day upon a Second Reading of a Bill of this kind, which will have to be discussed many days in Committee also, to save £5,500,000 at the expense of the unemployed. We are living in a critical situa-
tion with our industries collapsing all about us; the Government bring in no plans to deal with the situation, but sit there with utter futility and when they deal with the problem of unemployment at all, they bring in this miserable little Bill which is to save £5,500,000 at the expense of the unemployed. That is not a Government; that is simply a Front Bench of keepers of Office having to respond to an agitation on the benches on the opposite side.
We ask the Government to take their courage in their hands, and not to humiliate themselves and the Labour movement by a continuance of the futile policy which they are now pursuing, but to bring before this House plans which are adequate to the situation, plans which will raise the working-class standards, plans which will reconstruct society on a basis which will give hope to the unemployed; in other words, to carry out the spirit of the policy which we were returned to this House to carry out. If the Government will pursue a policy of this kind, they will find no more enthusiastic supporters than those for whom I speak in this House, but, when they do these fiddling and futile things, we shall be compelled to go into the Lobby to express our contempt for the kind of legislation which they are bringing forward.

Miss RATHBONE: There are many aspects of this Bill on which I should like to speak, but I will confine myself to one or two of them. First, with regard to the constitution of the Advisory Committee, the right hon. Lady mentioned that she took special satisfaction in the prospect of that committee, and expressly told us that it would be representative of all the great interests concerned. Yet in the preceding portion of her speech she had been dealing chiefly with the case of the married women workers. I do not know whether the House noticed that, not only when she was talking of the married women workers but of the seasonal and short-time workers, she repeatedly used the pronoun "she" and she was right because a very large proportion of the reasonal and short-time workers are women. I hope she will tell us in her reply what guarantee there is that this Advisory Committee will be in any real sense genuinely representative of the
class of persons whose interests it meddles with most seriously.
Can it really be said that the presence on the committee of three Trade Union Council representatives is a guarantee that the interests of the married women will be looked after, in face of the jealousy in the past of the male trade unionists who largely dominate the Trade Union Congress? Great as is my respect for the right hon. Lady I find it hard to forgive her for that action. Is there anyone in this House who knows better than she the uphill fight women have had to secure their present precarious footing on the slope of industry? Can she find it fair to leave it to this committee which contains no women? The Trade Union Congress may be fair to woman, but she will have to tread the line which the Trade Union Congress prescribes. There may be one or two women among the Trade Union Congress representatives, but will the Minister make it statutory that at least one is a woman? She may think it is some safeguard that she herself is a woman, but Ministers are here to-day and gone tomorrow, and she may be succeeded by someone with less knowledge than herself of the case of the working woman.
My second point is the way that this Advisory Committee will work. How would it deal with the question of the married woman worker? I am not disputing that there are anomalies and abuses in this respect. I have read not only the Report but the evidence submitted to the Royal Commission, and I was greatly impressed by the evidence that there was a certain amount of real abuse. I agree with that, although I doubt whether this is the real way out of the difficulty. The difficulty is the number of married women deciding to remain on benefit after they are married without any real intention of going on working. The period at which the witnesses say they are most anxious to get benefit without working is when they have domestic responsibilities and children at home. The young married woman finds it easy to remain at work. She has comparatively little temptation to seek benefit without working.
At present many employers make it a practice of dismissing women on marriage and the evidence at the Royal Commission shows that very largely the
abuses of this Act are the fault of the employers themselves. It suits many of them to keep a pool or a reserve of labour to draw upon in times of pressure. After this Bill is placed upon the Statute Book, tremendous pressure will be put upon employers by married women to keep them on for the stipulated number of weeks in order that they may count as regularly employed persons. Then, when they have accomplished that period, if they are persons who desire to sponge on the fund, they will find it easier than before.
The more one studies the evidence of abuses brought before the Royal Commission, the more clearly it appears that the fault centres round the decisions of the Umpires and of the courts of referees. They show the most astounding inconsistencies. I will only give one example. The woman administrative officer of the North Eastern district stated that, if a married woman would not take factory work because it did not give her time to return in the dinner hour to nurse her babies, that gave her a reasonable excuse for refusing the work and remaining on benefit. Yet in some of those courts married women have been swept off in shoals because they refused to work unreasonably long hours at low rates of pay at work which would prevent them getting back to skilled work which they have been doing all their lives. Is it not clear that the decisions of these courts of referees and of the umpires are not guided by any clear principle?
The proper way to remedy this anomaly of the married woman is to tighten up the definition of "availability for work" and to make it perfectly plain that, if a married woman applies as a married woman, she should take work that a man or a single woman would take. If she is not free to work the normal factory hours, then she is not available for work. If action on those lines is taken, it would not be necessary to introduce this special discrimination against the married woman as a class, which is so bitterly resented and which is regarded with such grave suspicion by the organised women of the country.

Major BRAITHWAITE: I regret very much the reasons which have led the Minister to bring in this Bill. I am one of those who believe in the honesty and
integrity of the working people of this country. I feel that to-day with conditions as they are the steadiness and patience of our people is a really remarkable thing. In no other country in the world would the people of the country have remained so steady and constant as they are doing under the most trying conditions. There never has been in the history of our country such a terrible spectacle of redundant labour as in Great Britain today. I regret that the Minister has found it necessary upon investigation to bring in a Measure of this kind. I feel certain that she would much rather have brought in some Measure which would give employment to people than a Measure of this kind.
I have had the opportunity of visiting the United States of America during the past three months, and in that country I made some inquiries from the very largest of their industrial organisations into the way they were tackling their problem of unemployment. It might interest the House to know that I asked the manager of one of the very largest of the labour employing organisations of the United States of America what they did with the unemployed people, and he replied, "We have no unemployed. We have a shortage of work, but we have no unemployed people. We are spreading the work that we have available over the whole of our personnel in order to maintain the moral and efficiency of those engaged in this industry." Though there is no measure of unemployment pay the people were able, with the wages they were receiving, to work three weeks on and two weeks off, and in that way the personnel necessary to carry on the business was maintained. There was no ease of anybody creating anomalies or trying to get money to which they were not entitled; and at the same time the personnel of the works are kept in a state of efficiency and are ready, when world markets improve, to seize the opportunity and go ahead. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the bread line?"] The bread lines do not concern industrial organisations. The bread lines consist mostly of clerks and people operating in the insurance companies and banks in New York City.
There is one part of this Bill on which I wish to congratulate the Minister, and that is Clause 3. There she has taken power to transfer workers from one part of the country to another, and in that respect she has made a start towards dealing with the problem presented by those of our industries which have redundant workers, many of whom, as the Government know, will never again find work in the industry in which they were brought up. [Interruption.] It may be a continuation of what has been done, but it is a policy which has never been acted upon by this Government. They have done little or nothing in that direction so far.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Lawson): We are carrying on what has been the practice for some time.

Major BRAITHWAITE: In some of those industries there are people who will never get back to their accustomed jobs again, and this part of the Bill will assist in taking them to places where they can be reabsorbed into industry. I believe that at the present time we have 11 months' work in the country for everybody, if we could spread it over the entire population, and Clause 3 might help us to do it. If we could spread the work over the population in that way we could have everybody employed and everybody contributing to the Insurance Fund, which would then be solvent instead of being bankrupt, and there would be no danger of anomalies creeping in. I am certain there is not a single Member in the House who wants to see anyone getting money from any Government fund in a dishonest way. I know that the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) does not want to see people taking money to which they are not entitled from any fund. He wants to see the fund put into such a condition that people can have a proper standard of life, and be maintained in a proper way.

Mr. TINKER: Does the hon. and gallant Member mean that we should spread out the work by reducing the hours of labour in every industry?

Major BRAITHWAITE: No. I do not know whether I should be in order in describing the scheme, but what I suggest is that there is 11 months' work in
the country for everyone. If we gave everyone in the country a month's holiday and paid every man a month's dole pay for the holiday, we should save half the amount of money we are now spending. That is something which I hope the Government will consider. We must put ourselves into a greater state of efficiency. When the employés in skilled industries are out of work for long periods they are of little use for a year or two after they return. Conditions in industry are changing every day and in the case of the engineering industry one might say they are changing almost every month. I do not think I have overstated the case. Men who have been out of work for a long time cannot go back to their industry and at once become the competitive units that it is necessary for us to have if we are to regain our markets. One thing I feel is that this is the wrong time at which to bring in this Bill—just when we are going to adjourn over a period of months. We have 2,600,000 unemployed people, and until late in October there will be no means of legislating to get them back into work.
I do not understand the attitude of the present Government. If ever a party had a record of broken pledges it is the party who are now in office. They have done absolutely nothing to tackle this problem, and when the history of unemployment legislation comes to be written, what has been done by this Parliament will be accounted as the greatest fraud ever perpetrated by any Government upon a trusting public. Surely something ought to rouse the Government to action. There have been attacks on them from inside their own party, there are attacks on them by the new party, the Liberal party are dissatisfied with them and we are bitterly disappointed. Any reasonable legislation to help trade and industry would have had the support of every member of our party, but the Government have proposed no single thing. They have not put a single man into work, and the longer they remain in office the more men seem to get out of work.
If the Government have not the courage to legislate, surely they ought to have the courage to get out and give the country an opportunity to say which party ought to be put in charge of affairs. This is getting to be the most tragic
and most terrible spectacle of industrial chaos which any Government have ever created. This unemployment problem is much more serious than the War. We lost 1,000,000 men in the War, but now we are losing 2,600,000 people, who are gradually going out of service as economic units. We have to fight for world markets, and with a demoralised group of people in the ranks of those who work in industry we shall never secure those markets again. I appeal to the Members of the Government, not as politicians but as Englishmen, and say to them that if they have not got a policy to put before the country they should let other people who have a policy form a Government in their place.
Having said that I want to add that I agree with a great deal that is in this little Bill, though I regard it as a Measure totally inadequate to deal with this problem, and I ask the Government to come forward with other proposals which will restore a little more confidence to industry, and give an opportunity to the people in the country who are ready to play their part in bringing about a restoration of prosperity to Great Britain. In the meantime, so long as the Government remain in their present dormant state, simply sitting down and waiting for the inevitable to happen, the country will only go on from bad to worse, and there will be more and more people crossing the Floor of the House in an effort to turn them out. The hon. Baronet the Member for Smethwick (Sir O. Mosley) was perfectly right this afternoon. He has had an opportunity of seeing the Labour party from inside and I am certain he is perfectly right in his criticism. With criticism from within their own party, with another party forming below the Gangway opposite, with the whole pressure of the country against them, with practically every newspaper in the country against them the Government ought to show that they have a little pride left and go to the country. There would be a restoration of confidence at once if the country had an opportunity of expressing its opinion. I think the time will not be long delayed before the Government are turned out and another Government take their place.

Mr. BENSON: In moving the Amendment which is now before the House the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) announced that his party intended to vote
against the Government. I knew that four years ago. I knew that the Independent Labour party intended to vote against the Government as soon as the hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot) sat down after announcing the attitude of the Opposition towards this Bill.

Mr. MAXTON: The hon. Member knew it earlier than that for he knew it at the meeting which was held yesterday.

Mr. BENSON: No. I did not. Behind all this self-righteous posturing there is a good deal of shrewd calculation before going into the Lobby, and they have carefully weighed up the situation before deciding to vote against the Government. The Independent Labour party are always ready to strike a reckless blow at the Government if they know that in the Division Lobby there is no risk. It was not until the hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove gave an indication of the line which was going to be taken by the Conservative party that the Members of the Independent Labour party declared their intention of carrying this opposition to the bitter end.
The hon. Member for Bridgeton asked why out of all the innumerable anomalies in the capitalist system the Government had picked out the anomalies relating to the Insurance Bill. I will tell the hon. Member. It is because the Government and the bulk of the Members of the Labour party regard the national insurance scheme as a matter of vital importance. The hon. Member for East Leyton (Mr. Brockway) told us that the present Government might not always be in office, and there might be a Conservative Government some day. What would a Conservative Government like better than to find the Insurance Act riddled with anomalies which are indefensible? Under cover of righting those anomalies they would be able to make a general attack and undermine the whole insurance system and the standard of living. Therefore, the Independent Labour party by opposing this Measure are doing the worst possible service they could do to the unemployed. The speech of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) was a defence not of the anomalies that exist, but of every
imaginary abuse that has ever been thought of by the "Daily Mail," and by adopting the attitude which he did adopt the hon. Member for Gorbals did a great disservice to the unemployment scheme which we want to defend and which we desire to make unassailable. The Amendment states that the Bill threatens the benefit of thousands of people. We are prepared to make the unemployment insurance scheme unassailable, and, by what we are doing, we are protecting the benefits of millions of insured men and women.
I want hon. Members on this side of the House to realise that sooner or later there may be an Conservative Government in power, and in those circumstances I would ask what would be the attitude of such a Government? I have here the evidence which was given by the employers who are the power backing the Opposition. What was their attitude? This is so important that I propose to read it to the House:
We would wish equally to emphasise the serious financial burdens imposed on British industry, and in addition we would wish to draw attention to the profound and far-reaching consequences which, since 1921, the payment of unemployment benefits at high rates and for long periods under relaxed conditions have had upon the general wage levels of this country, and our productions costs.
In spite of the more or less continuous fall in world prices since 1922, the average wage level in this country has not only failed to keep pace with that fall, but has indeed remained practically stationary at its 1922 level.
In our view the system of unemployment benefits, as operating since 1921, has by preventing unemployment from acting as a corrective factor in the adjustment of wage levels and costs of production, been responsible in no small measure for aggravating the very disease which it has been trying to relieve.
That is the attitude of the employers. They regard unemployment insurance and the present benefits as a powerful weapon for stabilising wages, and, if tney possibly can, they will depress it. On this question I think the hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove has shown the cloven hoof. How did he end his speech He said that this Bill was no use and that the best policy would be to amend the insurance scheme and put it upon an insurance basis. What does that mean? It practically means cutting down the benefit to one half, because the
benefits at the present moment require double the amount of money which the contributions bring in. The Tory party, through their official spokesman, have practically adopted the attitude of the employers as shown by the evidence given before the Royal Commission. I say it is of the utmost importance that before the evil day comes when the Tory party sits upon these benches we should make the unemployment insurance scheme utterly unassailable. Anomalies which no one but the Independent Labour party challenge and certainly not their constituents——

Mr. BUCHANAN: How does the hon. Member know that? I challenge him to the effect that he is prepared to give his seat to-morrow and I am ready to fight him on this Bill.

Mr. BENSON: If we allowed these anomalies to remain as the Amendment would do, does any hon. Member in this House believe that a Conservative Government would allow them to remain? No, the Conservative party would use them as a screen under which to attack the whole basis of insurance as it exists to-day. It would utilise them as a method of, to use the rather euphemistic phrase, "putting the insurance scheme upon an actuarial basis"—in other words, cutting down benefits and allowing the employers to use unemployment as "a corrective factor in the adjustment of wages." That is why we, who are loyal supporters of the Government, are prepared to support this Bill—because we believe it to be essential, because we are afraid to leave anomalies in the administration of the Act which, undoubtedly, would enable any future Government to do infinitely more grievous harm than anything that this Bill as at present drafted could possibly bring about.
The hon. Member for East Leyton, in criticising the Bill, pointed out that there are only three members of the Trades Union Congress, or three members appointed in consultation with them, on the committee. Apparently, he is under the impression that this committee will have some legislative function. The hon. Member for Bridgeton definitely said that it had. Apparently, neither of them has taken the trouble to read the Bill. This committee is purely a critical committee. It has no power of initiating any regula-
tions; it has no power of vetoing any regulations. The regulations arise at the instance of the Minister, they are sent to the committee for criticism and report, and thereafter the regulations, and the report of the committee upon the regulations, lie upon the Table of the House. There is nothing to prevent any minority of that committee issuing its own report, which will lie alongside the majority report.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Where does the hon. Member get that from?

Mr. BENSON: The Bill. If, instead of interrupting me, the hon. Member would read the Bill, he would see it. It is true, as he said, that these reports and regulations can only be discussed after Eleven o'clock at night, and he protested bitterly. I know, and we all know on this side of the House, that makers of eloquent speeches earlier in the evening frequently leave before Eleven o'clock, particularly when there is an all-night sitting, and leave the loyal Members to do the hard grind through the early hours of the morning—[Interruption.] Surely, Eleven o'clock is not too late to ask the hon. Member to stay. He is eloquent enough at Five o'clock—[Interruption.] There are ample safeguards in this Bill, and I do not think that any Member of the Labour party need be afraid of voting for it. I am fully convinced that in the interests, not so much of the stability of the fund, but of making the unemployment insurance scheme watertight, and giving the fewest loopholes for hon. Gentlemen opposite to attack and undermine it, this Bill ought to go through, and I very willingly support it.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: If anything could be more anomalous than the Bill which we are now considering, it is the speech of the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson). What is the complaint of the hon. Member——

Mr. BENSON: I have none.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: What was the complaint that he professed to have? It was that certain hon. Members in his party have been more faithful to their principles than he has. They have had the courage to stand up in this House, without hope of any reward, to speak for those who elected them—[Interruption.]

Mr. BENSON: If I had a complaint, it was not that, but it was that, having had the courage to speak in the House, they carefully calculated whether they dare have enough courage to go into the Division Lobby.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The hon. Gentleman, of course, beats me there. He has a knowledge of the mental mechanism of other people which I, not being a phychologist, do not claim to possess. The hon. Gentleman is doubtless judging by the processes of his own mind, for, if there is one thing which the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) and the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) and his friends have never lacked, it is courage, and the proof of it is that they have come here, in spite of all the obstacles placed in their way, and have spoken what they believed to be true. It is in the interests of the country that they should do so, and it is certainly not in the interests of the country that endeavours should be made to suppress free speech, because Parliament exists for the purpose of free speech.
When one leaves the personal side of the hon. Member's speech and comes to the argument, one finds oneself in a still greater difficulty in understanding it. He said, at the outset of his remarks, that this insurance scheme should be placed upon an unassailable basis. Is that what the Government are doing? Are the Government carrying out any of the recommendations of the Royal Commission? After having said that, he judged it to be a reproof against the hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot), who made so powerful a contribution to the Debate this afternoon, that he had actually said that this Fund should be put upon an insurance basis. It was not the hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove who said that. My hon. Friend has been at the Treasury; has he not followed the utterances of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? It was the Chancellor of the Exchequer who said that this Fund should be put upon an insurance basis, and for that purpose he appointed a Royal Commission; and the very terms of reference of that Royal Commission required them to answer the question, How can this Fund be put upon an insurance basis? That, I am afraid, is the answer to the hon. Gentleman.
I think I might also allude to another statement of his which seemed to me to be extraordinary, and to display great ignorance of the facts. He said that one day there might be a Conservative Government sitting on those benches. Does he not know that there is one? Does he not know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is the hope of the stern, unbending Tories? Is there any action of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the. Government Bench that would entitle them to be described by any other title than "Conservative"?
One sympathises, of course, and very deeply, with the difficulties of the right hon. Lady the Minister of Labour. She is confronted with, perhaps, the most serious crisis in British history. So serious is it that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has expressed, on more than occasion, very great alarm; and here, if I may refer again to the speech of the hon. Member for Chesterfield, it was not the evidence of the employers that indicated alarm; it was the evidence of the Treasury. The Treasury has called attention to the fact that our Budget is in a state of disequilibrium which portends a similar disaster to that which has befallen Australia. These are the difficulties with which the right hon. Lady is contending, and, naturally, so dazed is she by these difficulties that she has lurched from committee to commission, she has tumbled about from inquest to inquiry; and, at long last, we have the result of all this portentious consideration—we have the great Bill.
Neither the right hon. Lady nor the right hon. Gentleman who sits beside her can for a moment complain of the tolerance of this House The House has been patient. In the whole history of party politics I do not suppose that so much latitude has been shown to a Government. At length, we have the great Bill. What is the justification of it? Is it because the method that it employs is novel and useful, or is it because it is to save £5,000,000? I do not know. It has been recommended to us as being an innovation in procedure which will be thoroughly helpful. Is it an innovation? This method has been in existence in this country, with short exceptions, ever since the beginning of the Unemployment Insurance Acts, and I am surprised that nobody has called atten-
tion to it. It used to be known as the discretionary power of the Minister. From 1920 to 1924 a similar power to this existed. It was abolished by the Labour Government in 1924.

Mr. BUCHANAN: It is true to say that the Minister's discretionary power was to some extent the same, but at that time it only applied to the extended benefit of people without insurance, but now it has been extended to people in insurance.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend for anticipating what I was going to say. This aggravates what used to take place. The discretionary power of the Minister only interfered with people on extended benefit, but the right hon. Lady is now taking power to interfere with those who have actually contributed and are entitled by law and contract to certain benefits. This power existed from 1920 to 1924. It was abolished in 1924 and restored in 1925, where it remained until 1929. Nobody heard any complaints during that period about casual, intermittent short-time workers and married women. It was reinstated in 1929 by this Government because they found the discretionary power of Ministers intolerable. I am glad to see that the Secretary of State for War is giving a sort of police protection to the right hon. Lady to-night, because when he abolished the discretionary power in 1924 he said:
This, it is true, is one of the vital principles or the Bill. … I hope that the House will accept neither the principle that the Minister should have a right to say whether or not a man should have benefit, nor the principle that it is necessary at some time to stop a man's benefit. …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th July, 1924; cols. 2299–2301, Vol. 175.]
He thought that absolutely intolerable. The Home Secretary, who has been attending this Debate throughout the day, did not go quite so far as that. He put his objections upon a different ground, but all the present Ministers had an objection of one kind or another to the proposals contained in this Bill.
I do not think"—
said the present Home Secretary—
that my right hon. Friend is a man likely to abuse power, even though a large measure of it may be placed at his disposal, but no Minister in these days is certain of being in office for long, and therefore I cannot
trust to the vagueness of the future, not knowing who might succeed my right hon. Friend in the condition of removals, I suppose, which in due course, perhaps even before long, may have to take place within the Ministry,"—OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th March, 1923; col. 97, Vol. 161.]
That was said by the present Home Secretary in 1923, in a discussion on discretionary powers. The objection of the Home Secretary was not that a Conservative Minister might not be trusted to exercise those powers with care and circumspection and with solicitude for the conditions of the unemployed, but that that Minister might be replaced by another ever harsher, and, protected by those powers, the unemployed would have no defence against him. To-day, we must abrogate all those principles because we are going to save £5,000,000. The Budget is in a very serious position. There may be a deficit of £100,000,000 at the end of this year. Therefore, the right hon. Lady is going to save £5,000,000. Thirty thousand are going to be added every week to the unemployment register. For how long will the £5,000,000 pay their benefit? The so-called saving of £5,000,000 justifies the Government in abrogating a great principle. The country is in a crisis, and the right hon. Lady is going to give us £5,000,000. I am impressed by an argument which I think assails that argument, and perhaps the Secretary of State for War will forgive mo for reading it:
May I repeat"—
said the present Secretary of State for War, when a similar matter was under discussion six years ago—
that we refuse to bow the knee to gold, that there are other things in the world besides £5,000,000"—
What a coincidence!
that you can take from the unemployed, that the unemployed are of infinitely more value than your £5,000,000. … I could understand a big Government, a Government full of noble ideas, a Government that wanted to keep its promises to the people, coming forward and saying: 'We will wipe out this deficit as a had debt and start afresh.' I could understand that, but I cannot understand a Government coming with a cheese-paring, miserable policy of robbing people. I use the term advisedly. These people had promises made to them in good faith, and while you were afraid of them you tried to keep your promises. … You made promises, and did things, and now, when you think there is no danger, your promises are not worth a pie-crust, and you do not care a hang about either,
keeping the promises or maintaining the people that you promised you would maintain. You will take your five million pounds. You will screw them, I do not doubt, and when you have screwed them you have screwed them at the expense of your honour and at the expense of humanity."—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee D), 22nd July, 1925, col. 746.]
That was a very powerful criticism. Nobody has delivered a criticism of that kind to-night. It shows how different is the composition of right hon. Getnlemen opposite and those who oppose them. This Bill has an unsavoury character. It looks as if the right hon. Lady wants to hide behind the proposed committee. I say that for this reason. She knew exactly what was wrong with the Unemployment Insurance Acts. She told us this afternoon exactly what should be done. She does not want to do it. She wants to hide behind the advisory committee, so that when people come to her, poor people, and say: "You promised to attack poverty, and now you are attacking the poor," she will say: "I am not attacking the poor. It is the advisory committee. My heart is bleeding." There will be moaning and lamentation. Rachel weeping for her children! It will be the advisory committee. When some of the poor, gifted with intelligence, say to the right hon. Lady, "But who appointed the advisory committee?" she will say, "That was the Royal Commission." "Why did you appoint the Royal Commission?" "Because there was a three-party conference and that was agreed between everyone."
The right hon. Lady and her colleagues are moving targets. I wish they would move a bit quicker. I do not think it is fair on the unemployed, although I think there are germs of common sense in the Bill. If it were to contain powers to remove all anomalies, the anomalies that tell against the unemployed, I think there would be some sense in the Bill and, therefore, I ask the Secretary of State for War: is it possible to do justice as well as injustice to the unemployed on the Committee stage or is it not? Perhaps he will answer that question when he speaks. There is a great deal to be said for removing from Parliament matters of intricate detail but it is not fair to the unemployed to come here every six months and make changes. If this is to be an Insurance Act, which the right hon. Gentleman wishes it to be,
it is reasonable that you should take it outside the scope of Parliamentary interference and establish a scheme which is understandable by all those who enter into it, so that those who pay the contributions can get the benefits, because the people who are being penalised under the Bill are the people who have paid the contributions, and, if the insurance scheme were upon an insurance basis, no one would question their right or call them anomalies or any other convenient epithet.
It is quite reasonable to put the insurance scheme upon an insurance basis and take it out of Parliament altogether and administer it by a Commission and, if the Bill meant that, there would be something to be said for it as a constructive Measure. But the right hon. Lady says it does not mean that, and yet, by Clause 1 (2, a), you have power to deal with every single insured person. How does the right hon. Lady reconcile that power with what she has told us to-day? There would be justification for taking even tyrannical powers to deal with the question, not of unemployment insurance but of unemployment. Right hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House are a little slow about dealing with unemployment. They have not done anything for the unemployed, so now they are proceeding to take it out of the unemployed, and I do not think it is quite fair. They talk about genuinely seeking work. You may talk about genuinely seeking work when you are genuinely offering work.

Mr. DUFF COOPER: This has been from many points of view a remarkable Debate. In the first place, I do not think I have ever heard a Bill brought before the House, which I believe is likely to pass through the House, for which there is less to be said or in favour of which there have been fewer willing to speak. There have been only two whole-hearted and effective speeches made on behalf of the Bill, the speech, of course, of the right hon. Lady who introduced it and the speech of the hon. Lady the Member for Sunderland (Dr. Phillips). It is remarkable, and perhaps regrettable, that a Bill that is going to affect so seriously the position of so many married women could find only two sound supporters in the House, and both those should be ladies and both should be single. The Debate is also remarkable
in that it has been graced by the presence of the hon. Baronet the (Member for Smethwick (Sir O. Mosley), whom we are all glad to see, I will not say in his place, but in a place. During the last six months I believe he has paid only one other visit to the assembly. He holds Members of the other parties in supreme contempt. It is possible that we shall survive his contempt. But it is not of us that I am thinking to-day. I am thinking of his constituents. What have the voters of Smethwick done to be disfranchised? If the hon. Baronet rises superior to Parliamentary affairs, if he is right, as perhaps he may be, in holding everything that is done in this Chamber in scorn and contempt, I would suggest to him that he should make way for some humbler person, who will either support the Government or else assist us in the task we are taking on in trying to turn them out.
The hon. Baronet has, during his voluntary absence from this House, wandered far from the principles of Socialism which he once maintained. He told us to-day in referring to what he considered the real right, the indefensible right and the right nobody would dispute, to take as an example, the right of a child to inherit any amount of money left to it by its parents. Even such a moderate Socialist as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been known to take that right into question. He went on to say that that was the kind of payment you would be quite sure would be made if you insured with an insurance company, and that when, in due course, the insurance fell in you expected to be paid, and undoubtedly would be paid, by that company the amount for which you had been insured. I suggest to him that there is one possible contingency in which the company does not pay, and that is if the company happens to be bankrupt.
The reason why this Bill was introduced and the reason why the present Government support such a Measure is not, as the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) seems to believe, that the Government have been jockeyed into a false position by an intrigue of the wealthy classes stirred up by envy of the poor who are taking their insurance benefit. That is not the reason. Can the hon. Member for Bridgeton really think
that it is? Can he really think that the wealthy classes are so well organised that they could stir up so powerful an agitation as to compel a Labour Government with a majority in this House to adopt measures of this sort against their will? No.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: My hon. Friend is not present, so perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to intervene. [HON. MEMBERS: "He is!"] Can the hon. Member give us any idea of any working class organisation which suggested the Bill?

Mr. COOPER: I do not say for a moment that any working class organisation suggested the Bill. If the hon. Gentleman had not interrupted me, I was going to tell him what I thought had suggested the Bill; what had compelled the Bill upon unwilling Ministers, and that was the solid economic facts of the situation. The fear of bankruptcy, and nothing else, has driven Ministers, first, to appoint a Royal Commission, and then to act in this hesitating, unsatisfactory and feeble way upon one, and one only, of the recommendations of that Royal Commission. This Bill brings us up against a fact which is in the background of all political life in England to-day, and that is that for the first time in the history of this country we are living beyond our means. "We are meeting decreasing revenue by increasing expenditure. A rich man may afford to live for years beyond his income and may afford to borrow money at continually increasing rates of interest, but there is no man so rich that he can do that for ever. When we have to deal, not with an individual but with a great country, exactly the same laws apply.
There is no country, however rich, that for ever can go on increasing its expenditure with its revenue getting less. If we were living in the middle of the eighteenth century, when the affairs of Europe were more secure than they are to-day, there might be some excuse for the illusions of some hon. Members opposite, but only in the last fortnight we have seen two great European countries upon the verge of bankruptcy and have realised what that meant not only to this country but to the whole civilised world. It is impossible to go on borrowing for ever and living beyond your means for ever. There is,
fixed and immovable, a certain point beyond which you cannot go, and every year, every month, every day, we in this country have been approaching that point. For the first time the Government seem to have realised the facts of the situation which we have been trying to impress upon them for two years, and they now come to us with a novel request, a request not to borrow money, but to save it. We who have denounced them on previous occasions on the present occasion, and for this reason only, that it marks a new departure in policy on their part, find it impossible, at least I find it impossible, to vote against the Government which is attempting or pretending to attempt-its effort may not be sincere though it appears to be on the face of it—a real effort to make one step in the direction we have been urging them to go.
It is a small step. It is as though in the case of a man who has been running into debt on a gigantic scale someone comes along and assures his creditors that he will give up taking sugar in his tea. But not immediately. The first thing is to set up a committee to ascertain whether it is good for his health, and it will take six or seven weeks to collect that information. I object to this committee, though not for the same reasons as the hon. Member for Bridgeton. I object to it on principle. We are living in an age when there is a danger of all government falling into the hands of committees and commissions—a monstrous regiment of committees. It is one of the banes of democracy. The real reason behind every commission and committee which is set up is that somebody is afraid to accept responsibility. You can shift it on to a committee. The members of a committee or commission are usually admirable, worthy, expert, learned and broadminded people, but they are not men who are in the public eye. I wonder whether any Member of the House can rattle off the names of the members of the Royal Commission whose report is now under consideration. The moment you can refer anything to a committee or commission you feel safe. It is for this reason, and for no other, that the principle of the Advisory Committee has been introduced into this Bill.
We have had no explanation of that committee. The right hon. Lady waxed eloquent in her peroration upon its merits, and thought that it was going to change the whole system of insurance in this country. She thought it was going to do wonderful things, but she did not explain them. She did not say what kind of person was to be chairman; she did not make any defence of the membership of the committee. Perhaps the Secretary of State for War will be kind enough to tell us, not who are the individuals, but what kind of person the Government have in their mind as chairman of this committee. Why is the committee necessary? There are to be three members to represent the Trades Union Congress. Is that really necessary when the Minister of Labour is surrounded here by representatives of the trade union movement? She has at her command also an extremely efficient Department of State—a new Department of State, I would remind hon. Members, for before the War there was no Ministry of Labour. The whole of that Department has been created for her assistance. I believe it is one of the most efficient departments in the Civil Service.
Why should the Minister need extra advice? If she wants the advice of trade unionists there are plenty of trade unionists behind her, and I am sure they would not be backward or reticent in giving her any advice. As to the employers, they are not so many here as Members of the Labour party, but I am sure they would always be willing to come forward if they were asked to give their view. Then there is to be a Treasury official on this committee. That also I regret. This committee is going to have its full share of the lime-light; it is going to attract a great deal of attention and of odium to itself. I think it would be much better that that odium should be attached to a Minister who can come down here and defend his or her conduct in the House of Commons, rather than to a committee which cannot defend itself and which one always feels one has been unfair in attacking. Above all, I think it undesirable that a member of the Civil Service should be a member of that committee. No greater misfortune could befall this country than that the idea should get abroad—I see signs of it already in the speeches of hon. Members
opposite—that the Civil Service is a class organisation, that it is the enemy of the people. The spread of that idea would be fatal to the future welfare of this country.
By putting a representative of the Treasury on a committee which will be bitterly attacked and will undoubtedly arouse tremendous feeling throughout the country, the Government are dragging the Civil Service into politics and doing a disservice to the Civil Service. Perhaps the Secretary of State for War will tell us about the mysterious ninth member of the committee. There are to be a chairman, three members of trade unions, three members representative of the employers, and then there is to be one other. Nothing is said about him. If it were a detective story we would know at once that he was the murderer. We should like to know more about him. They are all to be nominees of the Minister; they all hold office during the Minister's pleasure. I suppose that all of them will obtain a certain remuneration for the services that they perform. I suppose that even the Treasury official, much of whose time will be taken up by this work, will have to make way for a new Treasury official, an extra member of that Department. All these people are to be paid. By whom? By the Unemployment Fund. That is to say, their wages are coming out of the contributions not only of the Government and the employers but of the workers of this country.
It is to take six weeks to set up this committee. Why should it take six weeks? I think it might be done in six hours. It could certainly be done in six days. But in this case the maximum time allowed is apt to prove the minimum time required, and I prophesy that the committee will not be working for six weeks to come. Nothing will be done until the middle of the autumn, and that at any rate will not satisfy those for whom I speak, who feel that something ought to be done at once, though it may well please hon. Members opposite, who would be only too glad to think that nothing at all will be done. Then there are the anomalies mentioned in the Bill, and the case of the married women about which we have heard a great deal this evening from every corner of the House. Many speakers, the hon. Member for Smeth-
wick among them, complained that these abuses have existed for years. Why, they ask, have these anomalies not been remedied before? Why did not the last Government do something about it? I do not think it has been sufficiently realised that the majority of these anomalies have been created by the present Government. It is their own act which they are seeking to undo to-night.
What are they really trying to do in the mass of verbiage, with which they have concealed their real intention in the Bill? What policy are they going to pursue with regard to these married women? At one moment I thought that the right hon. Lady was going to allow the phrase to escape her lips "People who are genuinely seeking work." There was also a moment when the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) asked the hon. Member for Sunderland (Dr. Marion Phillips) whether that was what she meant with regard to the married women, and she took refuge in the efficacious but not original device of saying "I meant exactly what I said." But to all intents and purposes what they do mean is to re-establish that phrase or something like it. I do not say that they are wrong to do so, I think they are right. I think they were wrong to put the onus of proof, not on the people seeking benefit but on those who had to distribute the benefit, and they are really to-night trying to re-establish the system as it existed formerly. That is why they have come so violently up against an important section of their own party.
The schism which we see in the Labour party to-night is not one of degree. It is a real dividing line not between moderates and extremists, not between two sets of people believing the same thing, but believing it to a different extent, but a division of principle, or rather a division between those who have principles and those who have none. We can understand—bitterly as we are divided from them—the point of view of the hon. Member for Bridgeton and the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). When we tell them that if they go on spending money in this way, they will drive the country into bankruptcy, they can answer "So much the better." They say that the sooner the capitalist system goes bankrupt the better. "We believe in another systeb,"
they say. "We believe that you cannot introduce that system on the top of the older one immediately, and that it would be better for society that the older system should make way for the system in which we believe." That is their policy. We, on the other hand, believe in the old system which has worked so long in this country and in every other civilised country. We believe that by wise administration, by gradual and careful and considered reform it can be made still to work in this country and can be productive of far greater benefits to the whole of the people than the situation as it exists to-day.
That is our point of view. The point of view of the hon. Members I have mentioned is, to us, the wrong one, and we prefer to devote the whole of our political lives to fighting their theory and doing everything in our power, so long as any power remains in us, to prevent a Socialist state from being set up in this country. They, on the other hand, are prepared to fight for that state because they believe in it. But what are we to say of the Government and those who support them? Do they believe in it any longer? Do they believe that anything can be done for the unemployed by any expedient known to Socialism? If they do, why in the name of Heaven do they not produce it? Why do they not come to this House with any socialistic scheme for solving the problem of unemployment? What is there to stop them? At one time it could be said that they had not got a majority, but we know now that they have got the most obedient, the most docile, the most servile majority in this House. Can they be afraid that the Liberal party, which last week voted for the nationalisation of land by a gradual process—[An HON. MEMBER: "A bit of Socialism!"] Certainly, a bit of Socialism, of true Socialism. They voted for a proposal that is only going to come into force in two or three years' time and for which there is no great demand in the country. Can they believe that the Liberal party, which voted for that, would refuse to vote for any practical socialistic scheme that was going to deal with unemployment? And if by some freak of chance they did succeed in goading those patient oxen to the point at which they could stand no goading any more, if they
did vote against it, then what a chance for the Government!
The Government have got sooner or later to consult the country. Their trouble is that they have nothing with which to go to the country, but if they were defeated in this House by the Liberal party and ourselves on a socialistic Measure to deal with unemployment, they would have a cry with which to go to the country and something for which to ask for a majority. We do not believe that they have any scheme, because if they had, they would have brought it forward long before now. The fact is that they have no policy, they have no scheme, they have no plan, and this Advisory Committee, this Bill that we are discussing to-night, is simply a smoke-screen put up to conceal a vacuum—[Interruption]. We on this side of the House may be criticised for not voting against a Measure in which we do not believe, in which we have very little confidence. We have already explained—my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot), I think, made it sufficiently plain—why it is that we shall not oppose the Measure before the House to-night.
We have treated the right hon. Lady the Minister of Labour with extreme consideration. She has come to us time after time asking us for money, and it has been given her with both hands. She used to say that to borrow if you could not repay was dishonourable. That was her own word, and ever since she has done nothing else but pursue that road of dishonour; and she now pleads the exigencies of the situation which nobody could foresee. Well, changed conditions may forgive a great deal. They may pardon you for adopting policies which at one time you would have been reluctant to look at; they may pardon you for taking all sorts of steps that in other situations you would not have taken, but no changed situation can excuse you for doing what you have once believed, and what in your hearts you still believe, to be thoroughly dishonourable. Let us not forget the words that the right hon. Lady used. She will not be allowed to forget them herself. They have been quoted more than once in this House, but they will be quoted very much more at the next election, on every platform in the country. Hon. Members will get
sick of those words. They will still resound in their ears when the Government are defeated.
But still to-night we support a Measure, or at least we allow a Measure to become law, to give great powers to the right hon. Lady, and, although I think she will use them drastically and will not abuse them, we are giving her the worst kind of cheque—a blank cheque—and we shall call her to account in the near future for the use she has made of it. Even if this Division to-night results in a victory for the Government, the Debate will have done them damage throughout the country, because the people of England will have realised how much they have been deceived by the Government which two years ago was elected principally on the cry of restoring a 7-hour day in the mines, of reducing unemployment, and of distributing greater benefits with a freer hand to those who remain unemployed. Last night they were pushing through this House at the eleventh hour a Bill to prolong the 7½-hour day for another year. To-night they are asking us to legislate in order to take away unemployment benefit from those who have hitherto been enjoying it. The reason for this melancholy and tragic climax is not that Ministers are ill-disposed or are inefficient; it is because they have no policy and no political beliefs. They have lost their illusions. They have lost their faith. They have lost their following, and, when they themselves are put to the test, they will find that they have lost the country.

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. T. Shaw): Whatever complaint may be made of the Debate, no one can complain of its lack of variety. We have heard just one or two things about the Bill in the course of the evening. We have in a glancing way had its provisions talked about, but, generally speaking, we have had speeches which, though excellent in character, had, like the flowers that bloom in the spring, nothing to do with the case. The hon. and gallant Gentleman who began the Debate made a contribution which was rather unique. He began by giving us substantial chunks of history, philosophy and, above all, admonition. We were to be supported in the Bill, but our blood was to be on our own heads, and he threatened us
with the spectre of Charles I, and talked about Strafford's ghost wandering round the House. Then he began to argue the Bill seriously and constructively, and his contribution is worthy of being treated not only as the first, but as the best treatment of the Bill. He said it was as great a revolution in its way as D.O.R.A., that it completely changed the system of unemployment insurance, that it meant putting the whole of the people who are insured under the charge of the Minister; and, in fact, that it was a complete change from our usual policy and from ordinary constitutional practice. If those things be indeed the case, then we have fairly to meet the arguments used.
Let me recall to the House the genesis of this Bill. From every part of the House, without exception, there were complaints that people were drawing insurance benefits by fraud, or, at any rate—though "fraud" was the word frequently used—were drawing them when they ought not to be drawing them. Those complaints did not come from one part of the House, but from all parts. I want some of my hon. Friends on this side of the House to remember that there is no keener critic of abuse and no keener hater of what is considered to be wrong than the decent working man. I shall have a word or two to say about the working man and woman that I know before I have finished. As a matter of fact, the Government found themselves with an interim report in which certain anomalies were referred to. The Government agreed in principle with the interim report that these were anomalies which ought to be removed, but could not agree with the method suggested by the commission for abolishing the anomalies. We found, on investigation, that it was possible by adopting a rough-and-ready method, by adopting a legislative method, that we could easily provide more anomalies than the anomalies we got rid of. Consequently, we decided, quite coolly and in the interests of the insured persons themselves, that it was advisable to ask the House for a power, which is certainly not ordinarily asked for, but which, in the circumstances of the case, we believe to be fully justified.
Remember what has taken place in connection with unemployment insurance. Minister after Minister, without excep-
tion, of both parties has utterly failed to foresee what was likely to happen. In 1924 I found myself in a position with the debt on the fund rapidly diminishing and unemployment rapidly falling. If ever there were a time since 1921 when it appeared as if things were becoming what is generally known as normal, it was in 1924. When we went out of office, the debt on the fund was about one-eighth of what it was when the Conservative Government went out of office, so that, if ever there were a time when we could have assumed that one could deal in a permanent way with unemployment insurance, it was in 1924. My calculations, like the calculations of my predecessors, and of my successors, were proved by the march of events to be altogether wrong. Nobody could foresee it, and we are in the condition now when we cannot foresee what is likely to take place. If it be the case that certain categories of people are drawing benefit who ought not to draw benefit—and I am going to maintain there are those categories—then, obviously, with all the miscalculations that have been made in the past, and with the not genuinely seeking work Clause in our minds, it is essential to provide, not for rigidity but for elasticity in our legislation, so that a remedy may be found if certain words do not work as they are expected to work.
"Not genuinely seeking work" are words one would have thought in the ordinary way would have been quite comprehensible, and could not be misunderstood. The decisions taken on those words show, however, that you must have the capacity to deal with cases where the application of your words is quite different from your intention, or you are going to have the same anomalies as in the past. Quite in cold blood, knowing what we are doing, we suggest this experiment, believing that we can do greater justice to the unemployed people than by any form of words that could be devised; for how, indeed, can one get a formula for married workers which will be as equitable in the case of the biscuit worker in Scotland as of the textile worker in Lancashire. The conditions are absolutely different, and consequently we make the suggestion that we do make.
It is said that this is taking the matter out of the hands of Parliament and crush-
ing discussion, whereas in truth it is encouraging discussion and encouraging Parliament to take an interest in the business. It is wrong to assume, as the hon. and gallant Member did, that this Committee is to be the judge in these matters and is really in control of administration. The Minister is responsible for the regulations; the Minister must bring the reports to the House, and must be responsible, as, indeed, the Minister ought to be. The House will have every opportunity to discuss what is being done on the presentation of these reports, and if it disagrees it can make its voice heard and its influence felt. So we do not apologise for the experiment in any shape or form. Is there such a revolution as has been suggested? It is not correct, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman says, that this Bill will cover all the insured persons. It is the intention to cover four specific classes of people, and there will be whole ranges of the community to which this Bill will not apply at all. If it be the case that there is any doubt about this, of course the Government will be perfectly willing to listen to any suggestion that may be made, and to make it clear that in its general application the Bill will be limited to the classes specified in it.
May I deal with the constitution of the Committee? There are three contributory forces to the Unemployment Fund. There are the workers; and we say to the organised workers, "Three representatives for you." There are the employers; and we say to the employers, "Three representatives for you." There are the general public, and we say, "Three for you." Could anything be fairer than that? And when we say there is to be a representative of the Treasury, that does not necessarily imply that it will be a civil servant member of the Treasury. There are other representatives of the Treasury than civil servants, and I hope it will not be taken for granted that we mean to push a well-known civil servant into the line of fire, where it is likely he will be heavily criticised as a result of his actions. I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman can take it for granted that the serious points he made are either not so serious as he thought them or, if he can suggest a way that will make the meaning plainer, he will find willing ears to listen to him.
He said there was nothing in the Bill dealing with the time when it would become operative. It is perfectly certain, is it not, that we cannot appoint a committee before we get the power? I should think it is perfectly evident that if we have to have a chairman or chairwoman we must get a person of such standing and such known fairness of character that he or she will command universal respect. People of that kind are not to be picked up in the street in a minute. You have to try one person after the other, and finally get the best that you can. In Clause 4, there is a proposal providing that the scheme will be ready in three months' time, and the committee ought to be set up, chairman and members complete, in about six weeks.
11.0 p.m.
Let me now turn to what has been said about giving up the powers of the House under this Bill. We are the last party in the world to try to take away from the House of Commons its powers. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the Guillotine?"] I understand that it is within the power of the House to take measures to cut off unnecessary discussion, and it was by the power of the House that the Guillotine was set up. We have no intention whatever of attempting to undermine the influence of Parliament, and I claim that in a case of this kind Parliament has more power by holding the Minister responsible for her regulations than it would have under a Statute on which it could say nothing, whether the Act worked well or badly.
It has been said by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Kelvin-grove (Major Elliot) that all the country is in sympathy with the objects of this Bill, and the hon. Member for St. George's (Mr. Cooper) argued in the opposite direction. I think that is a rather extraordinary coincidence. We have also been told that this Bill has only two supporters, but it is still going going to be carried, and evidently those two supporters are very strong in this House. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Cornwall (Sir D. Maclean) said that, in his opinion, although the word used in the Bill was "anomalies" in reality it meant that there had been a abuse of legal powers, and he gave a case of earnings which were about twice the amount of the
ordinary workman's earnings in the country, and asked if we believed that a man with those earnings should draw benefits which had been contributed by people working a full week, and earning only half that sum. I say deliberately that I am not in favour of paying benefit to any man who, by working a short week regularly, makes double the average wage. I am not in favour of paying a man of that kind unemployment benefit. I do not want to use strong words, but I know the words my own people would use about cases of that kind, and if I want to hear strong words on this question I can go to my own people.
I do not claim a very high moral standard, and I do not claim that I am the only person whose heart beats for the workers. [Interruption.] I was earning my living at an age when many people who talk about the poor and about the workers were preparing for the university, and I have been actually poorer myself than most people. [An HON. MEMBER: Did not the poor provide the suit you are wearing?"] I have got a suit on, and I have earned it, and the poor did not give it to me. If I may be permitted a personal note, to which I think I am entitled in view of what has been said, I have known what it has been to be in bed with rheumatic fever, for my wife to be in bed utterly worn out, and to have three children in bed ill, with not a farthing in the house. I had nowhere to turn to for help, but was dependent upon the kindness of my own people, the workers, and that I have never forgotten. When I am told that we are the people who are robbing the poor, I could say a great deal, but I will simply say that there is too much humbug in these statements.
We are told that we are robbing the poorest of the poor, but there is not a word in this Bill that will rob anybody. We are told that we are putting a premium upon women living in sin. That is the most extraordinary statement that I have ever heard. I remember that at one time handbills were given out at the door of every Catholic church in Preston stating that the Labour party were Bolshevists, and that Bolshevism meant the nationalisation of women, and appealing to all good Catholics to vote against the Bolshevists. My hon. Friend the Mem-
ber for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) has given them another handle; he states that the Labour party is giving a premium to the woman who is living in sin. It is a most monstrous and foolish idea that this Bill will give a premium to the woman who is living in sin. It could only emanate from the mind of a man who was either so hopelessly prejudiced against the party or such an absolute megalomaniac that he did not appreciate the meaning of what he was saying.
Then there was the right hon. Baronet the Member for Smethwick (Sir O. Mosley). I am afraid that he has played the part of Marc Anthony so often that he must play it whether the play is Julius Caesar or not. I believe that if he were discussing the Copernican theory he would say that all our astronomy was wrong because the Government had not got on with its long-term policy. He asked, why have all these years gone by without the anomalies being found out before? I would tell him that the anomalies were pointed out, as I have already said, from all sides of the House. Does he forget, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals and my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) forgot, that our Bill has put scores of thousands of people on insurance benefit? Have they forgotten that our Bill increased the benefits? If they have not forgotten, they have a capacity for hiding the truth which I think is absolutely unexampled in this House. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Smethwick——

Mr. EDE: He is not right!

Mr. SHAW: He is "the right hon. Baronet the Member for Smethwick." He raised the point that there is only one true test as to whether anybody ought to remain on the insurance register or go off, and that was the offering of a job. If the job was not accepted, it must be assumed that the person was not genuinely unemployed. Take the case where you have not a job to offer, where you have a woman who has got married and you know that, deliberately, she has no intention to work again. If you do not offer her a job, are you to go on paying her? Is that the idea?
Let me point out another detail which some of our friends seem to forget. They
are so unaccustomed to industrial practice that they do not know that there are certain unions that will not let the Employment Exchange interfere by offering jobs. I wonder if the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) belongs to the Patternmakers' Union.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Yes, ever since I was of the age to join, and I had the honour of being on the executive for four or five years.

Mr. SHAW: Did the Patternmakers' Union or the Exchange offer jobs?

Mr. BUCHANAN: The Patternmakers filled vacancies, or the Exchange, but the great majority of patternmakers are fixed up, as other workers are fixed up, by going round and getting the jobs themselves.

Mr. SHAW: I do not question for one moment the hon. Member's statement. I merely say that it is so different from my information that I am rather staggered. If you had compulsory registration of vacancies by employers and compulsory filling by the exchanges there would be a case for making a clear dividing line and saying that unless the exchange could offer a job, it must be assumed that there are no jobs to offer. We have not got there yet. The Government are acting on the principle that a job must be there before there is any question of a person not seeking work. Although that principle is being acted upon, it would be very inadvisable in the present state of trade to attempt to make that an absolutely binding condition.
The hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. G. Hardie) told us a story about travelling with some men who are week-end workers. They are the type of men definitely dealt with in one part of the Bill. He said that the weekly wages of one man were £7 10s. and of another man £5 10s. and that the labourers got £2 10s. Is anyone in this House going to say that they would pay insurance benefits for four days to a man earning £7 10s.? Is there any Member of this House who would say that it is proper to go on paying these benefits?

Mr. G. HARDIE: My point was this—At what point is a man insured, and at what point does he become uninsured under the Bill? Is the matter to be put
on the basis of what a man earns or is it a question of time or of insurance?

Mr. SHAW: The Bill definitely pro-Tides that the Minister shall have power to deal with these cases. "When in habitual work a man or woman works two- days and earns either the normal wage or more than the normal wage, the Minister will have power to say that in those cases benefits shall not be paid or to determine what proportion of the benefits shall be paid. I make no apology for that. It is a perfectly square thing, and I think that the workers themselves have more objection to payments of that kind than anybody else. We are told we should not have this Bill because it is not based on proven figures. How can they be proved? Everyone knows the cases exist. There is every power in the Bill for the Minister to be strictly just to everyone, and the statement that it is to rob the poorest of the poor is a monstrous invention. There is no truth in it.
I will deal with one or two questions raised by the hon. Member for Bridgeton. I have dealt with his argument about effective control and I have told the House it has been deliberately done in order that we may experiment in order to find the proper and the best way to deal with cases, and to have sufficient elasticity to find the best way without having to get a fresh Act of Parliament every time a regulation proves not to work in the way we want it to. Surrender of great principles! What principle have we surrendered? There is no surrender of principle. There is no Member of the House who is a keener upholder of the rights of the poor, and of the duties of the poor, than Members of the Government, and as for the assumption that somewhere there is a party whose humanitarian feelings are so high above those of everyone else that we poor mortals can only look up to them—they are a collection of unsocial megalomaniacs. So contented are they with their own superiority that they -cannot even imagine that there are other people quite as good as they are themselves. Let them get it out of their heads that we look upon them as being superior persons. When they can talk as equals, we will talk with them. When they sit in solitary grandeur and pride themselves that they are the best and
noblest and that they alone look after the poor. We listen with amused contempt. [Interruption.] We are told we are trying to pass over our work to other people who know nothing at all about it. There, again, the Bill has not been weighed, because we are not transferring our work to other people who will be responsible, without knowing anything about it. The Minister will be responsible for the regulations and will be responsible to the House. It is a total misrepresentation of the Bill to pretend that we are putting our responsibility upon them. The Minister is there and must be responsible under the Bill.

Mr. de ROTHSCHILD: Will the Government treat this committee with the same disregard as they have treated other committees?

Mr. SHAW: I tried to explain that the Government was accepting the responsibility, and was not trying to push it on to a committee. The committee will be an advisory committee, as every committee is an advisory committee, and the Government must bear its own responsibility for the policy.
Let me turn to the question of bidding for votes. The hon. Member for Bridge-ton seemed to think that, if you voted for this Bill, it was a very bad vote-catching proposition. I am prepared to state to my constituents—I have not one voice here and another there—that I object to paying benefits to people who are working for a full week's wage. I object to paying benefits to married women who have no intention of working. I object to paying benefit to seasonal workers whose family for generations have worked at seasonal occupations and never did work at anything else. I object to paying benefit to people who are making more than an average weekly wage at their trade and week in and week out drawing benefits in addition.

Mr. MAXTON: What about the married women?

Mr. SHAW: I have told you about the married women. I will give a typical case of what I mean. Take the case of a woman who marries a man who has a business. They want to increase the business. The wife gets work for a certain number of months. Every-
body knows for what purpose. In order to get enough money to increase the business. Everybody knows that when the business has increased to a point she will give up working, and not come back any more. Are you in favour of stopping that woman's benefit? I am, and I will say so in my own Division. I turn to the points raised by the hon. Lady the Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone). She is very anxious that one member of the committee should be a woman.

Miss RATHBONE: More than one.

Mr. SHAW: Six out of the nine will be appointed by the employers' associations and by the trade unions, and I do not know what are the intentions of my right hon. Friend with regard to the other three. Certainly I think the hon. Lady may take it for granted that there will be someone on the Committee who will know particularly what married women's work is. The hon. and gallant Member for Buckrose (Major Braithwaite) gave us some rather interesting details with regard to what is going on in America, and he showed us how we could abolish the whole of the unemployed problem by giving a month's holiday with pay to all the workers. I am sure that his representations will be received favourably by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, and if he can show us how we can abolish the unemployment problem by giving holidays with pay, no one would be more delighted than we should be to accept his advice at once.
I am not going to conclude by way of a peroration, but by making a perfectly plain and categorical declaration as to the intentions of the Government. The intentions of the Government are that everybody genuinely entitled to benefit shall get it, but that in cases where owing to the law there are classes drawing benefits who are already better off than the ordinary working man then those classes shall not get benefit. Where it is quite evident that work is systematically concentrated in a way that gives a big return there shall be no claim for benefit on top of that, but there are cases where the intermittent work
is purely due to the ordinary accidents of trade. Take, for instance, the building trade. No one would dream that this should apply to the building trade. In the engineering trade where a man might work three days and three nights at a stretch at an engine and then perhaps play for two or three weeks, no one would ever dream of stopping his benefit. But how are you going, without experiment, to draw a Clause that will hit the man who is drawing the money but will not hit the man who is working intermittently and not drawing it? We suggest that ours is the only practical way, and knowing perfectly well what we are doing, we commend the Bill to the House.
There is no greater enemy of the working classes of this country than the man or woman who fills them with ideas which are not for their own good. It is a perfectly sound idea on the part of working men to object to what appears to be an improper action. It is not true to say that the workers are not in favour of this Bill. There is no keener opponent of abuses in the world than the working classes. You cannot help the Unemployment Insurance scheme, you cannot help your own friends, by shutting your eyes to the fact that these anomalies exist. We have never claimed that we are going to save £5,000,000. If the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha) had listened to the Minister of Labour he would have known that she specifically said that she could not guarantee any figure, and if he will read the explanatory memorandum he will find that the Royal Commission estimated that figure. My right hon. Friend made it perfectly clear that she had made no estimate, and the hon. Member wanted to make a debating point and made it at the expense of strict veracity. I ask the House to give a Second Reading to the Bill in the belief that it is a fair Bill and in the best interests of the poorest of the poor themselves.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 231; Noes,. 19.

Division No. 383.]
AYES.
[3.28 p.m.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Groves, Thomas E.
Malone, C. L' Estrange (N'thampton)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Grundy, Thomas W.
Manning, E. L.


Alpass, J. H.
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Mansfield, W.


Ammon, Charles George
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
March, S.


Arnott, John
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Marcus, M.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C)
Marley, J.


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Marshall, Fred


Barr, James
Hardle, David (Rutherglen)
Mathers, George


Batty, Joseph
Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)
Matters, L. W.


Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Harris, Percy A.
Messer, Fred


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Haycock, A. W.
Milner, Major J.


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Hayday, Arthur
Montague, Frederick


Benson, G.
Hayes, John Henry
Morley, Ralph


Bevan, Aneurln (Ebbw Vale)
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)


Broad, Francis Alfred
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Muff, G.


Bromfield, William
Harriotts, J.
Muggeridge, H. T.


Brooke, W.
Hicks, Ernest George
Murnin, Hugh


Brothers, M.
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Noel Baker, P. J.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Hoffman, P. C.
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)


Burgess, F. G.
Horrable, J. F.
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)


Cape, Thomas
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Palin, John Henry.


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Isaacs, George
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Chater, Daniel
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Perry, S. F.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Jones, Llewellyn-, F.
Phillips, Dr. Marlon


Cornpton, Joseph
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Picton-Turbervill, Edith


Cove, William G.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Pole, Major D. G.


Cowan, D. M.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Potts, John S.


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Quibell, D. J. K.


Daggar, George
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Dallas, George
Kelly, W. T.
Raynes, W. R.


Dalton, Hugh
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Knight, Holford
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)
Ritson, J.


Day, Harry
Lang, Gordon
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Romeril, H. G.


Devlin, Joseph
Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)
Rosbotham, D. S. T


Dukes, C.
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Rothschild, J. de


Duncan, Charles
Law, A. (Rossendale)
Rowson, Guy


Ede, James Chuter
Lawrence, Susan
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)


Edmunds, J. E.
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Samuel, Rt. Hen. Sir H. (Darwen)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lawther, W. (Barnard Cattle)
Sawyer, G. F.


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Leach, W.
Scurr, John


Egan, W. H.
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Sexton, Sir James


Elmley, Viscount
Lees, J.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (preston)


England, Colonel A.
Leonard, W
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Shield, George William


Evans, Major Herbert (Gateshead)
Logan, David Gilbert
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Freeman, Peter
Longbottom, A. W.
Shillaker, J. F.


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Lunn, William
Shinwell, E.


Gibbins, Joseph
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Gibson, H. M. (Lanes, Mossley)
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Simmons, C. J.


Glassey, A. E.
McElwee, A.
Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)


Gossling, A. G.
McEntee, V. L.
Sinclair, Sir A. (Calthness)


Gould, F.
McKinlay, A.
Sinkinson, George


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)
Sitch, Charles H.


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsoy, Rotherhlthe)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James J.
Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B. (Keighley)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
McShane, John James
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Tinker, John Joseph
White, H. G.


Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Toole, Joseph
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Stamford, Thomas W.
Vaughan, David
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Strauss, G. R.
Viant, S. P.
Williams, Dr J. H. (Llanelly)


Sullivan, J.
Watkins, F. C.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Sutton, J. E.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Taylor R. A. (Lincoln)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)
Wellock, Wilfred
Winterton, G. E. (Lalcestsr, Loughb'gh)


Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Welsh, James (Paisley)
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)



Thurtle, Ernest
West, F. R.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Tillett, Ben
Westwood, Joseph
Mr. Paling and Mr. Charleton.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Fison, F. G. Clavering
Nail-Cain, A. R. N.


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)


Albery, Irving James
Forgan, Dr. Robert
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Frece, Sir Walter de
Penny, Sir George


Beaumont, M. W.
Ganzonl, Sir John
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Cault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Rathbone, Eleanor


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Boyce, Leslie
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Bracken, B.
Hammersley, S. S.
Skelton, A. N.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Hartington, Marquess of
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Briscoe, Richard George
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd. Henley)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Broadbent, Colonel J.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Smithers, Waldron


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Hurd, Percy A.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Carver, Major W. H.
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Iveagh, Countess of
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Knox, Sir Alfred
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Thompson, Luke


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Christie, J. A.
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Locker- Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Wells, Sydney R.


Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Macquisten, F. A.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Marjoribanks, Edward
Womersley, W. J.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)



Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s. M.)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Everard, W. Lindsay
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)
Sir Frederick Thomson and Captain Austin Hudson.


Ferguson, Sir John
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive



Fielden, E. B.
Muirhead, A. J.

Division No. 384.]
AYES.
[11.28 p.m.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Perry, S. F.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Harris, Percy A.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Haycock, A. W.
Phillips, Dr. Marlon


Alpass, J. H.
Hayday, Arthur
Picton-Turbervill, Edith


Ammon, Charles George
Hayes, John Henry
Pole, Major D. G.


Arnott, John
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Potts, John S.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Price, M. P.


Ayles, Walter
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Barnes, Alfred John
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Raynes, W. R.


Barr, James
Herriotts, J.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Batey, Joseph
Hicks, Ernest George
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Ritson, J.


Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Hoffman, P. C.
Romerll, H. G.


Benson, G.
Hollins, A.
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Birkett, W. Norman
Hopkin, Daniel
Rowson, Guy


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)


Bowen, J. W.
Isaacs, George
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Broad, Francis Alfred
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Bromfield, William
Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Sanders, W. S.


Bromley, J.
Jones, Llewellyn-, F.
Sawyer, G. F.


Brooke, W.
Jones, Rt. Hon Leif (Camborne)
Scurr, John


Brothers, M.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sexton, Sir James


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Sherwood, G. H.


Burgess, F. G.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Shield, George William


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Lang, Gordon
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Cameron, A. G.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Shillaker, J. F.


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)
Shinwell, E.


Carver, Major W. H.
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Charleton, H. C.
Law, A. (Rossendale)
Simmons, C. J.


Chater, Daniel
Lawrence, Susan
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)


Clarke, J. S.
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Sinkinson, George


Cluse, W. S.
Lawson, John James
Sitch, Charles H.


Compton, Joseph
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Leach, W.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Daggar, George
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B. (Keighley).


Dallas, George
Lees, J.
Smith, Rennle (Penistone)


Dalton, Hugh
Leonard, W.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Lewis, T. (Southamoton)
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Longbottom, A. W.
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lunn, William
Scrensen, R.


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Stamford, Thomas W.


Dukes, C.
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Strauss, G. R.


Duncan, Charles
Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)
Sullivan, J.


Ede, James Chuter
McEntee, V. L.
Sutton, J. E.


Edge, Sir William
McKinlay, A.
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Edmunds, J. E.
MacNelli-Weir, L.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Egan, W. H.
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Elmley, Viscount
Manning, E. L.
Thurtle, Ernest


Evans, Major Herbert (Gateshead)
Mansfield, W.
Tillett, Ben


Fielden, E. B.
Marcus, M.
Tinker, John Joseph


Foot, Isaac
Marshall, Fred
Toole, Joseph


Freeman, Peter
Matters, L. W.
Tout, W. J.


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham. Upton)
Middleton. G.
Vaughan, David


Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
Mills, J. E.
Viant, S. P.


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Milner, Major J.
Walker, J.


Gibbins, Joseph
Montague, Frederick
Wallace, H. W.


Gibson, H. M. (Lancs. Mossley)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Watkins, F. C.


Gill, T. H.
Morley, Ralph
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Gillett, George M.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Wellock, Wilfred


Glassey, A. E.
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Mort, D. L.
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Gossling, A. G.
Muff, G.
West, F. R.


Gould, F.
Murnin, Hugh
Westwood, Joseph


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Nathan, Major H. L.
White, H. G.


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Naylor, T. E.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Gray, Milner
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne).
Noel Baker, P. J.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Oldfield, J. R.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Groves, Thomas E.
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Grundy, Thomas W.
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Palin, John Henry



Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Paling, Wilfrid
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. William Whiteley.




NOES.


Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.)
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Brockway, A. Fenner
Buchanan, G.




Cove, William G.
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Stephen, Campbell


Forgan, Dr. Robert
Maxton, James
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe


Horrabin, J. F.
Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Wise, E. F.


Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)



Kirkwood, D.
Sandham, E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Beckett and Mr. Kinley.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next, 13th July.—[Mr. T. Kennedy.]

DAGENHAM URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL [Lords].

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Unemployment Insurance (No. 4) Bill,

Coal Mines Bill,

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (Herne Bay Water and Southend Water) Bill,

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (Aylesbury Joint Hospital District and Stretford and District Gas Board) Bill,

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (Birkenhead and Chepping Wycombe) Bill,

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (Frimley and Farnborough Water and Great Berkhampstead Water) Bill, without Amendment.

Amendments to—

Yorkshire (Woollen District) Transport Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm certain agreements entered into by the Commissioners of Works with a view to the acquisition for the purposes of the Imperial War Museum of a part of the premises vested by the Bethlem Hospital Act, 1926, in the London County Council as an open space and to authorise the retention and adaptation of certain of the existing buildings on the said premises; and for purposes consequential thereon." [Bethlem Hospital (Amendment) Bill [Lords.]

BETHLEM HOSPITAL (AMENDMENT) BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 198.]

Ordered, "That the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills do examine the Bethlem Hospital (Amendment) Bill [Lords] with respect to compliance with the Standing Orders relative to Private Bills."

EXPORTS of cotton piece goods from United Kingdom to India, month by month, for the year 1929, 1930 and 1931, showing percentage decrease of the years 1930 and 1931 on 1929.


Month.
1929.
1930.
Percentage decrease of 1930 on 1929.
1931.
Percentage decrease of 1931 on 1929.





'000 square yards.
'000 square yards.

'000 square yards.



January
…
…
147,042
126,009
14.5
28,907
80.4


February
…
…
135,083
134,984
.1
36,725
72.9


March
…
…
134,508
130,761
2.8
34,666
74.3


April
…
…
159,519
84,328
47.2
39,195
75.4


May
…
…
89,084
76,692
14.0
36,132
59.5


June
…
…
61,915
44,519
28.1
—
—


July
…
…
129,829
58,181
55.2
—
—


August
…
…
129,286
42,242
6.74
—
—


September
…
…
89,854
22,726
74.8
—
—


October
…
…
92,529
18,360
80.2
—
—


November
…
…
104,561
18,932
81.9
—
—


December
…
…
100,964
20,341
79.9
—
—

EXPORTS of cotton piece goods from the United Kingdom to destinations other than India, month by month, for the years 1929, 1930 and 1931, showing percentage decrease of the years 1930 and 1931 on 1929.


Month.
1929.
1930.
Percentage decrease of 1930 on 1929.
1931.
Percentage decrease of 1931 on 1929.





'000 square yards.
'000 square yards.

000 square yards.



January
…
…
232,299
187,173
19.5
126,722
45.5


February
…
…
190,986
164,535
13.8
109,611
42.6


March
…
…
199,462
150,582
24.6
101,777
49.0


April
…
…
189,895
132,721
30.1
95,998
49.5


May
…
…
232,365
141,396
39.2
105,356
54.7


June
…
…
161,955
114,171
29.5
—
—


July
…
…
225,554
139,204
38.3
—
—


August…
…
…
192,027
145,740
24.2
—
—


September
…
…
147,682
120,091
18.7
—
—


October
…
…
173,264
131,980
23.9
—
—


November
…
…
179,422
111,381
37.3
—
—


December
…
…
172,595
109,813
36.4
—
—

NEWS SERVICES.

Mr. GREENE: asked the Secretary of State for India (1) whether the Government of India has received any com

Orders of the Day — UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (No. 3) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Miss Bondfield): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This Bill deals with two distinct questions, anomalies and transfer, which have no relation one with the other, and, with the permission of the House, I shall deal first with the transfer point, so-that it may be disposed of and got out of the way, Hon. Members will notice that Clause 3 deals with the question of transfer, and the purpose is to regularise the position in relation to certain expenditure, borne on the Vote for the Ministry of Labour on services in connection with industrial transference. This Clause has been introduced in fulfilment of a promise made to the Public Accounts Committee. In the second report from the Select Committee on Public Accounts, recently published and available to Members in the Vote Office to-day, there will be found on page 3, a criticism of the use of the Appropriation Act to override certain statutory provisions. The report states:
Your Committee regarded this position as unsatisfactory, but they accepted the explanations given to them on behalf of the Ministry of Labour in regard to the difficulties in securing such legislation during the 12 months which have since elapsed, and note that a Clause to regularise the present position has been included in the unemployment Insurance Bill recently introduced into Your House.
The Clause docs not effect any change in policy and is not in any sense a new proposal at all, its purpose is to secure greater mobility in the transfer of labour from depressed areas and the amounts concerned are, broadly speaking, as follows:



£


Free fares to juveniles
2,500


Grants and loans for lodgings and removal expenses of men (and their dependants) from depressed areas
33,000


Advances of fares to employment found other than through the Employment Exchanges and fares home of stranded workers, say
3,500





£


Miscellaneous small grants for incidental expenses of men moving from depressed areas
1,000


Making a total of
40,000


I think there will be no dispute about the importance of carrying out the wishes of the Public Accounts Committee to regularise this expenditure.
I will turn to that part of the Bill which deals with anomalies, and may I say here that I feel that it is essential on my part to place on record the very deep appreciation that the Government have for the members of the Royal Commission and the public-spirited way in which they have devoted themselves to the examination of this question? They are all very busy people, and they have done so at very great inconvenience to themselves, and I wish personally to record, on behalf of myself and the Government, our very sincere thanks. With regard to the word "anomalies" in the Title of the Bill, the House will find in paragraph 103 of the report that this is the word which the Commission themselves have suggested. They say:
Much attention has been directed to certain provisions of the scheme which give rise to what have been commonly termed the 'abuses' of the Acts, but which may more fairly be called 'anomalies'.
It is because of that reference that we have adopted this word in the place of the other as the Title of the Bill. The anomalies, as the House will see from the report, are, broadly speaking, put under four headings—the casual and short-time worker, the seasonal worker, the intermittent worker, and the married woman. The Commission point out three reasons why they consider that these anomalies should be dealt with in some special way, and they say, in paragraph 104:
The seriousness of these anomalies lies in

(1) the unnecessary expenditure from public funds to which employers, workers and the State have contributed;
(2) their effect on the repute of the scheme;
(3) their encouragement of methods of industrial organisation which may be harmful to trade and employment in general."
Those three reasons are sufficient in themselves to demand an examination by this House of the case which I have to put before it, but hon. Members will notice that none of these three reasons suggests
any extent of the problem, and the Department does not claim that these anomalies are widespread or that they would involve any very large sum of money. On the question raised by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) as to the numbers likely to be affected in each category, I think the numbers are relatively unimportant. The point is whether certain categories of persons are or are not receiving benefit for which they have no claim, benefit which under the Act or under any public opinion, whether it is the workers' public opinion or other bodies' opinion, nobody ever contemplated that they would receive. Those are the main points, and on Thursday, 25th June, in reply to a question, I gave this answer as to the data upon which the Government Actuary or the Commission themselves have suggested a possible saving of £5,000,000. This is a rough and ready estimate of how the Actuary has divided up the classes, and how—this is only a rough estimate, not based upon any exact details, because they do not exist—in his opinion the £5,000,000 is divided up. Broadly speaking, he suggests that:
the classes comprising casual and short-time workers and married women would each account for between £2,000,000 and £2,500,000, and intermittent and seasonal workers together for between £750,000 and £1,000,000."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th June, 1931; col. 593, Vol. 254.]
The Ministry of Labour cannot take any responsibility for these figures. In the evidence the House will have seen exactly the amount of information that we have at our disposal. We have placed the whole of it before the commission, and upon that information the Actuary has given these rough and ready estimates. It is only experience that will be able to show us whether they are even approximately near the amount of money involved. Then, with regard to the evidence itself, I do not propose to weary the House this afternoon with long quotations from the evidence. We made a special effort to ensure that the evidence should be available to the Members of this House day by day as the Commission proceeded, and it is hoped that, by this, Members of the House who have been interesting themselves in this question will be familiar with the evidence which the Commission has so far heard.
The recommendations arising out of the evidence which they have considered—and, of course, they have only partially considered the evidence—will be found on page 51 of the report, in the summary, under the paragraph headed "III.—Anomalies (paragraphs 103–125)." Hon. Members will see there that they sketch out in very broad outlines the lines upon which they think these anomalies should be dealt with. The Government agree, in principle, with these recommendations, and the purpose of the Bill is to give substantial legislative effect to the recommendations contained on page 51 of the report. If I may claim the indulgence of the House, I want to deal at some length with the reasons why we have chosen the method of regulation rather than to attempt to embody in an Act of Parliament statutory clauses for dealing with these anomalies. It is because it is essential to secure elasticity, and we can see no other way of securing elasticity in order to deal with the innumerable variants of the same problem with which we are dealing in the different classes of trade and in the different conditions of employment.
Take for example, the classes who may be regarded as receiving substantial earnings. By that, we mean those who are neither unemployed nor under-employed in the sense in which those terms are usually used. What happens is that they are working intensively for a short period of time. Their working week is much shorter than the normal working man's working week. They compress into, it may be, 36 hours enough work pretty well to drain their energies, and in some categories they need the extra days of rest in order to recuperate in time for the next day's job but their earnings are substantial, and I do not think that any responsible trade union leader considers that where such a category exists or where such men are employed under those conditions they should also draw two, three, or four days' benefit on the top of those substantial earnings. In order to be quite sure, however, that we do not inflict injustice by laying down some statutory condition which is going to operate throughout the whole year, although the workers' conditions may change, we have to proceed by regulations, fitting the circumstances of each of these groups of trades.
There is the problem of the ascertainment of earnings which vary with the different categories of labour. There is also the problem, for example, of those instances, very small perhaps, but instances which do exist, where earnings plus benefit are put into a pool and cover a period of a month at a time, and the kind of regulations that would meet such a case could not possibly be applied in an Act of Parliament. It is therefore essential that we should proceed in these matters, not by Statute, but by regulation. The Commission are very obviously of that opinion, because in paragraph 103 of their report they say:
It is difficult to make provision in an Act of Parliament for unanticipated problems, and it is not surprising that the general provisions of a scheme which is designed to deal with the normal type of unemployment should, in their application to an infinite variety of individual circumstances, operate in some cases in a way which was not within the intention of the Legislature.
I can take, for example, the difficulty which we should have in connection with what are described as seasonal workers. It is perfectly clear that there are two categories of seasonal trades. There is a seasonal trade like the building trade. No one wants to interfere with that. There are times and seasons when that trade is pretty slack, but work is going on all the year round. That is not one of the seasonal trades to which this paragraph refers. It refers to the class of seasonal worker who adds to whatever is his ordinary occupation, employment at some special work at a particular season of the year which is governed by dates or the weather. Jam-making is an illustration of such work, in which for a few weeks in a year there is a tremendous rush to secure the preservation of the fruit that has been picked, and when that is over and done with nothing happens until next year in connection with this category of seasonal workers. There are certain classes of workers who do not, in fact, do anything except particular seasonal jobs, and they wait until next season comes round before they come into the employment field again. These, I submit, can be better dealt with by regulation than by any words in a Statute.
Then there are the intermittent workers. We have here to be very careful not to do a graver injustice than the one
we are trying to cure. The intermittent workers can be divided into those who would work more if they could and those who would not. It is a very definite distinction. There are, for example, the shop assistants who want to have full-time jobs, but because of slackness of trade can only get a few days work a week, and should not be penalised on that account. There are other workers who do not wish to have more work than that which is provided for them on Friday and Saturday in connection with their old employment, and are brought in for the busy days of the week and do not wish to have employment on the other days of the week. It is obviously unfair that those people who do not wish to have a full week's work should be able to draw regularly four days' benefit from the fund and earn two days' wages in the shops. That cannot be dealt with so well by Statute as by regulation.
We come to the very thorny question of the married women. I do not believe that married women can be legislated for as a class. It is not right that it should be so, and I wish to put before the House the picture as I see it. At July, 1930, the number of women, aged 18 to 64, who were insured was 2,880,000. The proportion of married women is estimated to be between 25 and 30 per cent. of that total; that is, not more than three married women to every seven single women.
In 1927 the proportion of married women claimants to the total number of women claimants was 26 per cent. In October, 1930, it had risen to 50 per cent. Although the proportion of married women in the insurance field had not materially increased, the number of claimants had risen from 26 per cent. in 1927 to 50 per cent. in 1930.
I will give another group of figures, because it is important. We have to make up our minds on this problem, and I want to be fair to everybody concerned in putting my case as clearly as I can and the basis for my conclusions on this matter. At October, 1930, there were 238,000 single women claimants. If you take the proportion of three married women to seven single women in the insurance field, there should have been 102,000 married women claimants. As a matter of fact, there were 239,000, an excess on the normal
proportion of 137,000. This excess is partially accounted for by the slump in those trades where married women were known to be very largely employed, but that is not altogether so. It does not account for the complete difference, and I am drawn to this conclusion with the aid of one other group of figures which show that the entry into insurance has diminished, that is to say, there were fewer people entering into insurance during 1929–30, but that there was an abnormal decrease in the numbers passing out. Instead of getting the average of previous years, there were fewer people entering into insurance but a large increase in the numbers insured. It is obvious that this is due to persons staying in insurance who in former years passed out. It is impossible to avoid the conclusion that of the women to-day who are abnormally remaining in insurance in excess of those of previous years, a proportion are married women who are doing so largely because they are able to obtain benefit.
I do not claim any superior wisdom in this matter, but I do claim that in a knowledge of the conditions of working women in industry, my practical experience is second to none in this House. I have personally been in the closest touch with the different categories of women's trades during the last 18 months, and this question has caused me a tremendous amount of anxiety and difficulty. I have taken the opportunity of meeting groups of people in different parts of the country, such as working women, working-men's wives, insured women and claimants, and I have definitely come to the conclusion that there is a strong body of opinion which believes that there is an evil here that ought to be cured, and a difficulty here that has to be met, and that in trying to deal with it we shall receive the active support of those who want to put the position of married women on a footing of real equality.
4.0 p.m.
The woman who does not intend to work after marriage changes her industrial status. She is not unemployed in the same sense as before; she is engaged in an unpaid occupation, and often is not available for work to the same degree as before marriage. That applies particularly to certain geographical areas in the country, and in certain
other geographical areas it does not apply to the same extent. In Lancashire, for instance, you have much more of the old established system where married women naturally go on working after marriage and some relative looks after the household affairs. She is not doing a double job in the sense that married women would do in other geographical areas where it is not the custom to arrange for some relative to look after the family. It is, therefore, necessary that we should have regulations which will deal with the several categories of married women in special circumstances. At the present time a woman can, and very many of them in fact do, voluntarily give up work on marriage and obtain benefit on a declaration that she is unemployed and available for work, although in fact it is clear that the work that is suitable for her is not available for her in her changed industrial status. Under the present umpire's rulings, marriage creates an inequality in favour of the married woman that does not apply either to the married man or to the single woman. I think that it will have to be made clear that benefit is not a dowry on marriage on account of contributions paid; that it is not a source of income to enable a woman to be economically independent of her husband's earnings, or to supplement the poor earnings of her husband; that marriage does not create a special privilege to escape the normal obligations of a job; that benefit is only due to an unemployed married woman who is still in the industrial field, and will remain so in the same sense in which a man or a single woman remains; such a married woman does not ask for special favours and should not have benefit denied when unemployed.
Those are the lines on which we desire to proceed, and we ask the House to give very careful consideration to the points which are raised here, because it is only necessary to state them in order to show how very carefully the regulations will have to be framed, and may have to be altered if they do not work. It is essential that there should be great elasticity, and the possibility of close consultation with the industries concerned in connection with this very complicated question. I think, however, I have demonstrated to
the House that it is not perhaps possible to find words which will deal with a situation of such complexity in a Statute. It is on these grounds that we have proceeded with a Bill based upon the principle of regulation rather than the principle of statutory enactment.
I now come to the Bill itself, and will deal quite briefly with the Clauses. First of all, may I say very emphatically in respect to certain criticisms which I have seen in different quarters, that under this Bill the Minister has not a general power to deal with the four classes of anomalies? All that can be done is to make such changes as appear necessary for dealing with claims of persons in those classes who, in a benefit period, are in receipt of substantial earnings or would not normally be insurably employed. Those are the two points only in which the Minister has got power. With regard to Sub-section (1) of Clause 1, it will be the duty of the Minister, as soon as may be after the passing of the Act, and after consultation with the advisory committee, to make regulations for the purpose of removing the anomalies. The regulations to be made are to impose additional conditions for the receipt of benefit, restrictions on the amount and period of benefit and to make such modifications in the provisions of the Acts relating to the determination of claims as appear to be necessary for giving effect to the intention that benefit should be limited or refused in the classes of cases concerned.
It will be not at all a matter of course that in a given case, John Smith or Mary Smith will necessarily lose his or her benefit under the regulations we make. We make these regulations, but the insured person still retains all the statutory rights for the consideration of her claim which exist for the insured person. She is entitled to take her case to the court of referees. She is entitled to appeal, if given leave by the court of referees or if a member of a trade union, to the umpire. The same applies, of course, to men claimants. There is no intention to deny to any of these doubtful claims within these four categories the usual machinery for the adjudication of claims, but we do believe that the regulations will be of great assistance to the courts of referees in dealing with these claims.
Sub-section (2) of Clause 1 defines the classes of persons to whom the limitations and restrictions are intended to apply. They are persons who, within a given period, may be entitled to receive benefit in respect of certain days, although they have in fact received substantial sums by way of earnings or similar payments for other days within the same period; Seasonal workers, that is, persons who are employed on work which is performed during a certain season of the year, and who, outside that season, do not generally work on any other occupation.

Mr. BUCHANAN: At the end of Subsection, (1) are the words, "substantial earnings or other similar payments." Will the right hon. Lady tell us what "other similar payments" are?

Miss BOND FIELD: The word "earnings" is used in a different sense in different industries. There will be, for example, the pool of which I spoke just now, where the earnings of 20 or 30 men are pooled, plus the unemployment benefit of any of them, and the total is divided up. You cannot call the quotient the earnings of a particular man. It is meant to cover the sums of money which accrue to him as a result of his conditions of work.
The third category to whom the limitations and restrictions are intended to apply is that of persons who, while they are regularly employed on one or two days each week, do not work, and frequently do not seek to work, on any other days of the week. Those are what we call intermittent workers. The fourth category is that of married women, who since marriage have paid less than a given number of contributions within a prescribed period, that is, those women who, since their marriage, have not shown by work in an insured trade that they remain within the insurable field. This does not mean that every married woman has to go through a process of examination. It only means that those married women who are not able to be employed in the sense we use the term, are required to satisfy certain prescribed conditions other than those laid down in the Act.

Mr. GEORGE HARDIE: That includes the women as well as men. Are these
people who are outwith the provisions of the Act as it stands to remain insured persons?

Miss BONDFIELD: It will be a very great mistake to try to force exemptions from the Act, because the conditions of employment may change, and we want them to be in a position to draw their unemployment pay. We want them, if conditions of employment change, not to be outwith the Act, but well within the provisions of the Act. There is no intention to exclude any categories from insurance. Sub-section (4) is, if I may say so, the ordinary routine Clause, and appears in both the 1924 and the 1927 Acts, and is necessary for administrative purposes. It is quite impossible to survey the register in a short space of time, and the Clause allows three months to the administrative staff to deal with the different categories in the review of the register.
I come to Sub-section (5), which, in my opinion, is by far the most important and most valuable part of the Bill. Here is a new principle introduced. This Clause has been very greatly misunderstood. The comments which I have seen about it show that those who have been criticising it do not apprehend what is going on in the great bodies of organised labour and organised employers. It will be noticed by those who have carefully read the evidence, that both in the trade union evidence and that of the Confederation, very definite proposals are made for bringing these two great bodies who represent the insured population into closer contact with the actual administration of the fund. This is a beginning, and I profoundly hope and believe that in this experimental period—for it is experimental—dealing with this comparatively small matter—small in extent, though a matter of great principle—if we can get this Advisory Committee working in close association with the administration, we shall get far more satisfactory results comparable with that control exercised in connection with health insurance. Not that I want to suggest approved society machinery—that is not the method which would suit this—but that the people themselves who are vitally concerned in the right and careful administration of the fund and who have the industrial ex-
perience in the different categories of trades may be called in to advise the administration as to the framing of regulations and the proper working of such regulations. The main function of the Advisory Committee is to advise the Minister whether, having regard to the intention of the Act, draft regulations are in fact effective, or likely to be effective, without doing injustice to the interests of the trade and to the insured persons.
I want, for a moment, to refer back to the third reason given by the Commission for the necessity of dealing with this question, namely, the encouragement of methods of industrial organisation. Who are likely to know best what will encourage or discourage such methods except people who are directly concerned with a trade? This Advisory Committee will work in such manner as will enable us to get very quickly—because in these matters we have to proceed willy-nilly in consultation with the interests concerned—and the important point about the Committee is that we shall get that consultation and advice at first hand in the beginning of things, instead of at a later stage, when it would be much more difficult to arrange the wording of a regulation or the framing of an Act of Parliament.
It is my earnest and sincere hope that this Bill, and the setting up of this Committee in consultation with the employers, the trade unionists and the Treasury, which will represent the taxpayer—the tripartite contributors to the fund—will mean, perhaps, the opening of a newer and better chapter in the administration of unemployment insurance and the administration of unemployment relief to unemployed persons of all categories. As I say, I can only claim for it that it is an experiment which, I profoundly believe, is in the right direction, and I ask the House to give a Second Reading to my Bill.

Major ELLIOT: I am sure that all of us will have listened with great interest to the admirable, clear and lucid statement which the Minister of Labour has just given us of the complicated Measure which is laid before us. I think the whole House prefers the Minister to make that sort of speech, than to carry on a controversy in this House with a famous French economist as quoted in "The Times." After all, we are dealing with
a new departure, and it is not of such great interest to the country to hold an autopsy over past mistakes. We are dealing here with a departure of infinite importance, not merely to the people who may come under the category of anomalies or abuses, not merely to the 2,600,000 people who are now on the live register, not merely to the 9,250,000 people who are insured, but to the whole 17,000,000 workers of this country, because this Measure is of vital importance to all of them, and its implication, namely, the financial stability of the country, goes far beyond even their interests, and touches the immediate, practical interest of every member of the nation.
The Minister has used one or two words which are bound to evoke at any rate a sympathetic response from all sides of the House. She has spoken of this as an experiment and said that during this experimental period we must try the new method which she has submitted for the consideration of the House. She is asking the House to take a decision of very great consequence. We are asked to set up what is neither more nor less than a D.O.R.A. Act for the whole scheme of unemployment insurance. We remember the wide change wrought in the social structure of this country by means of that small Bill which was passed in the early days of the War without any debate; I believe there was only one question asked, as to whether it was retrospective or not. That Act transformed the whole structure of this country; and it is no exaggeration to say that the operation of the machinery which it is proposed to set up and the Orders which may be laid as a result of this, Bill may very easily have a similar transforming effect upon the whole structure of unemployment insurance as we know it. Yet nobody can say that this is anything but a tardy and dilatory attempt to deal with the problem. The Minister herself has drawn attention to this problem for the best part of a year, and laid White Papers which drew attention to it earlier even than that.
There was the famous White Paper of December, 1929, just after the Minister had accepted some Amendments which were brought in from the same quarters from which opposition, and vehement opposition, is now threatened to this Bill. The White Paper stated that two classes
of persons, among others, were being brought in—married women and seasonal workers—regarding which it was not possible to make any financial estimate of what was likely to happen as a result of the Bill as then amended. In that White Paper the Minister went further and stated that what was being done would attract into the benefit-paying field persons who were not in any real sense of the word in the market for employment. That was in December, 1929. After that the Minister herself began to make reference to it in the numerous speeches which she delivered when she came to the House for increasing sums of money. She spoke of it in July last year, and when introducing the Money Resolutions of one of the borrowing Bills, and again on 8th December she spoke of it at length, and she claimed credit for it, saying, "It is my Department that has brought these things to the notice of the House and the country as a whole." It was not a case of these things having been pressed on her from outside but that her Department was investigating these things, that her Department was able to give information to the House and to the country upon these matters; and it is rather a tardy discovery now to say, as the Minister says and the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill says, that it is impossible to give any answer to the three questions which both the House and the country and the opposition parties—which are not confined now to one side of the House—desire to know. Those questions are: How many people are going to be affected; how great are the savings which are going to be secured; and when is this Bill going to come into operation? The answer to those questions is vital to any consideration of this Bill.
Over a long period we have had discussions by means of committees and commissions of one kind or another. This is the first moment at which the Government start action. The action, it is true, is merely the setting up of a machine, but the Minister has pledged herself very emphatically this afternoon to the intention to operate the machine and makes it function, to the intention of genuinely using it and getting results both moral and financial which will make a real difference to these anomalies which are now one of the blemishes on the scheme.
But we have to debate this Measure in ignorance even of a suggestion by the Minister of how many people are going to be affected. She says not many people will be affected. That is a relative phrase. A saving of £5,000,000 is the estimate of the Royal Commission. Her aim is to secure the objects of the Royal Commission. A saving of £5,000,000 is a large sum which cannot be attained without trenching upon a wide field and without the possibility of making inroads into a considerable number of payments which are being made. It is useless for the Minister to say, "We will pass this Bill, we will set up this tremendous engine"—a much more powerful engine than the Minister has brought out in her speech—"and £5,000,000 will be saved, but it will not affect very many people. On the whole nobody will really notice it."
In dealing with this subject we are dealing with matters which will raise widespread feeling, and possibly indignation, throughout many constituencies, all the more because of the differentiation between areas which are enshrined in the Bill as tabled by the Minister, and it is useless for the House to go forward with this question in anything less than a spirit of firm resolution. Undoubtedly attempts will be made to alter this, and unless the House realises to what it has set its hand it will flinch when the testing time comes. Nothing but a grave sense of the desperate position of the whole system of unemployment insurance could have moved the Minister to introduce proposals such as this, and only like considerations could inspire any hon. Member in any part of the House to support them.
The Measure touches not merely the question of benefit but far wider things, questions of constitutional control which go to the roots of our system of government. Two great things are being reversed this afternoon. For the first time in the history of this Parliament we have a statement in a Bill that it shall be the duty of the Minister to make regulations which shall impose additional conditions in respect of the receipt of benefit and such restrictions on the amount and period of benefit as may appear necessary. Several times the Government
have submitted Bills to Parliament with the observation, "This is a temporary Measure. We ask you to bear with us just now, but we are going to come along with great advantages." The Unemployment Insurance Act of 1930 was put through on those terms. "This is not our main project," it was said, "These are not our most favourable intentions." But this is a reversal of the engine; the same process that has come about in so many other countries has begun here.
There is another thing. Directly or indirectly the vast question of direct democratic control is being broached this afternoon. The question is, Can this House directly control the enormous schemes for which it is ultimately responsible or are we to adopt the principle of the statutory commission, such as we have in the case of the Electricity Commission and the British Broadcast Corporation—the new 20th century idea of a removal of administration from the attack of the electorate? [Interruption.] Yes, that is the question, and it is a fundamental question. Is this to be the principle on which we are to act or are we to go on the old principle of direct control by the elected representatives of the people, a thing which was fought for so many years by our predecessors in Parliament. The process of engrossing power into its own hands has been pursued by this House not for decades but for centuries.

Mr. KELLY: You voted for the Electricity Bill.

Major ELLIOT: Oh, yes; and I say this is a good principle. I am not proposing to attack it. I voted for the appointment of the Electricity Commissioners and for the creation of the British Broadcasting Corporation, and I will vote for a statutory commission every time. I believe it is not merely the only way to avoid the constant bidding of one party against another at elections but the only means by which this House can preserve any shreds of control that it may desire to exercise.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: It is the end of democracy.

Major ELLIOT: The end of democracy! Well, the Tory party has not been quite so enthusiastic about democracy
as some parties on the other side, but it is a very interesting example of the wheel coming full circle that it is from a democratic party that the proposal to remove these things from the purview of the people should have come. The proposals put forward are proposals which I, certainly, and many of us on this side will support. During a long period of administration we have come to a realisation of the fact, which has been recognised by many thinkers on various sides of politics, that the attempt by this House to carry out direct administration of these great schemes will lead, in fact, to the control of none of them whatever. But this Bill is in some respects strong meat even for the historic party which supported the Kings against this House of Commons. Take the proposal on page 3 of the Bill about the constitution and the continuance of the advisory committee—the commission, the judges, for they are no less—who will administer these new proposals:
If any member of the Advisory Committee becomes in the opinion of the Minister unfit for any reason to continue to be a member of the Committee, the Minister may terminate his appointment.
Suppose one puts it in terms more familiar to this House: "If any member of a bench of judges becomes in the opinion of the King unfit for any reason to continue to be a member of the bench of judges, the King may terminate his appointment." When we come to the Committee stage of this Bill to-morrow, and when your chair is vacated, Mr. Speaker, I think that the ghost of one of the Stuart monarchs will be found seated therein. The sardonic chuckle of Charles I may well be heard proceeding in ghostly fashion from that seat in which he once sat. And if the officials in the Gallery do not feel a certain ghostly chill from the spirit of the Earl of Strafford I shall be very much surprised.
We are discussing these two very great principles, and on these two very great principles the Minister has made a courageous departure, and a departure which merits the attention and, I believe, the sympathy, of ail Members of the House. I notice that there is an Amendment for rejection down on the Paper in the name of the hon. Baronet the Member for Smethwick (Sir O. Mosley). The Bill, however, seems to me to envisage a mode of procedure very closely
parallel to the method of procedure which I understood was desired by him, namely, that it is not competent for Parliament to discuss matters in detail, but that schemes should be submitted to Parliament as a whole and Parliament should accept or reject them.
It is not the machinery which is the important thing, but what you mean to do with the machinery, and it is the result of the operation of the machinery by which the policy of the Minister must be judged. The Bill itself seems to me to go much further than the explanatory memorandum, or what the Minister has indicated in her speech. I should like to ask whether I am right or wrong in the interpretation which seems inevitable from the words used in the Statute. Who are the persons whom it is proposed to bring under the aegis of this new commission and under the orders which may be issued by the Minister as a result of their deliberations? They are:
married women who, in any prescribed period subsequent to marriage, have had loss than the prescribed number of contributions paid in respect of them.
Persons whose normal employment is employment in an occupation in which their services are not normally required for more than two days in the week.
Persons whose normal employment is employment for portions of the year only in occupations which are of a seasonal nature.
The remaining classes of persons to whom the Section applies are the following:
(a) persons who on any day within the period in respect of which benefit is payable or within any preceding period prescribed by the regulations receive any earnings or similar payments of such a kind, and of such substantial amount, as may be so prescribed; 
Surely that is a definition of unemployed persons as a whole. They are persons who within any period precedent to the period of unemployment are in receipt of earnings. I do not wish to catechise the Minister, but that provision seems to me to cover a very wide field.

Miss BONDFIELD: I think the hon. and gallant Member has omitted the words "prescribed by the regulations."

Major ELLIOT: But they are the Minister's own regulations, settled by her after consultation with the committee which has been nominated by the Minister, any member of which the Minister
may dismiss at any moment. The period is to be decided by the Minister and the means and the nature of the earnings are to be prescribed by the Minister. Therefore, I cannot avoid the conclusion that here we have really an extension of the inquiry to the whole field of unemployment, and, if not a means test, at least an earnings test which it is within the power of this committee to apply to any person. The question is what is the House really being asked to place on the Statute Book of this country. It seems to me that we are being asked to grant powers which override every safeguard which has been given to the unemployed person, for all those safeguards may henceforward be modified at the will of the Minister or the committee.
It may be necessary that this Bill should be placed upon the Statute Book and I think it is necessary. There is no doubt that the evils into which the Unemployment Insurance Scheme has fallen are so great that it is only by drastic means of this kind that they can be removed. There is a cry going up in regard to this question for a scapegoat for the demerits of the whole scheme. I am not referring to the vehement language used by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) about "cadgers" and "cadging on the dole," but I am referring to words which are beginning to be used by the Government Press and by the supporters of the Government which are of an even more offensive character. "Spongers" is the word which is now being used. One of the Government papers says:
This Committee will be set the task of drawing up regulations which will prevent these sponger cases from drawing benefit.
It further, in another issue, said recently:
If the I.L.P. gets itself committed to any policy of defending abuses or sponging on the unemployment insurance benefit it will do an ill service indeed to the unemployed.
That is a quotation from the Government organ in Scotland formerly edited by the Lord Privy Seal. It is the business of this House to deal with those cases. At the Glasgow Conference of the Trade Union Congress this question of unemployment insurance was discussed and a very hot speech was de-
livered by a lady, Miss Brand, of the Transport Workers who in supporting the Motion urged:
That the married woman anomaly should be removed without delay. She alleged that 25 per cent. of the women who went to the Labour Exchanges were simply parasites on the fund.
'The real working woman' she declared, is being penalised because of this type who are spongers and nothing more.'
Those are very strong words, and they indicate a feeling that people are beginning to look for a scapegoat, in regard to this very grave injustice. We have to consider the proposals of the Minister from the point of view both of their objects and the methods by which she proposes to achieve those objects. Obviously those objects are something which the whole country is more or less in sympathy, that is to say a desire to remove and reform the abuses of unemployment insurance. A trade union correspondent writing in the "Forward" says:
These are the chief classes of anomaly. There may not be so very many spongers in each class, but even a few spongers here and there are used by the class enemies of the unemployed as an excuse for proposing to reduce the unemployment benefit rates all round; it is therefore clearly in the interests of the unemployed that these spongers should be eliminated.
I think that is a frame of mind in which the whole country can sympathise. As for the methods which the Minister brings forward, they are defended by the Minister and in the Government Press largely on the ground that they are the methods which the Trade Union Congress brought before the Royal Commission, notably by the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday). It is quite true that the words of the hon. Member for West Nottingham have been almost written into the Statute and it is more than interesting to find anti-democratic feeling beginning to run even in those bodies of organised labour which the hon. Member for West Nottingham represents. The methods which the Minister of Labour proposes can only be justified on the ground of an experiment. She asks us for liberty to make an experiment of a temporary but of a very sweeping kind which it is quite possible may create even a greater injustice than the injustice which he is seeking to remove. We are all agreed that a start must be made in dealing with this question. We are all
agreed that in some way or other this master has to be tackled and the difficulties to be faced ought not to prevent this House from tackling the problem. We are in sympathy with the objects of the Minister as she has explained them. The methods which are being adopted are the responsibility of the Government. The Government are asking for these great powers and we shall not withhold them. The Government will be judged not by the Bill but by its results. Six months hence the testing time will come. Then we shall want to know what has been the result of the tremendous power which the Minister is asking the House to give to her this afternoon. Then we shall ask the Minister for the results of her administration. When the results of that administration come to be audited I feel certain that the House will say that it would be a better policy to reform the scheme drastically than deal with it by the methods which are suggested in the Bill now before the House and will get back to the real principles of insurance. The Minister has asked the House for these powers and the responsibility is theirs. This is the first active step they have taken, and we shall do our best to see that the powers which have been asked for shall be given.

Sir DONALD MACLEAN: I do not quite know what the hon. and gallant Member who has just spoken means by his speech. I rather gathered, from the start of his observations, that he is in favour of the Bill, but a large portion of his speech subsequently seemed to me to be devoted—no doubt, from a party point of view, perfectly legitimately—to making the task of the Minister as difficult as he possibly could with her own majority behind her. I do not rise with any such intention; the matter is far too serious for that. I agree with the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member at the start of his speech, when he made some interesting and valuable philosophic reflections upon the position of this House with special regard to the Measure which is now before it. It is a very serious matter that by this, and, indeed, by other Measures passed by the Government, the functions of the Government of this country have been in material respects largely transferred to Government officials; but I feel that, however much we may protest against and dis-
like that, our situation is so complex, so serious, and, indeed, so critical as regards the matter with which we are at present faced, that, if we were to adopt the ordinary methods of dealing with a matter of this kind by means of a long and complicated Measure, and the House of Commons itself were to settle down to devising how in almost every instance the matter should be dealt with, we should not finish with this Bill until the early days of the New Year.
We are faced with a question of vital importance to the country—the question how we shall begin to deal with this matter of unemployment benefit, which is crushing with an overwhelming force the financial stability of the country. That is the fact of the matter, and we should be very foolish indeed to blind our eyes to it. It is lamentable—and here I agree with the hon. and gallant Member—that we are forced to deal with one of the most difficult matters affecting the lives, the well-being, the happiness, and, indeed, the physical maintenance of hundreds of thousands of people who are in a position of difficulty through no fault of their own. The inevitable effect of our Debates before the Bill leaves this House will be that we shall put ourselves in a difficult position in a large number of our constituencies.
I would like to make one general observation on the question of insurance and the unemployment benefits which are now being poured out. It is a choice which this country has had to make while an almost silent revolution has been going on in our midst. There has been an attack, not so much by employers' associations, but by the economic forces of what is known as the standard of life—in other words, the rates of wages. Were it not that there has been in operation this, in many respects, much abused insurance system—though I agree to a large extent that the use of that term is not applicable to benefits or means of maintenance which are poured out—if it had not been for that, we should, during the last 12 months, have seen riots, and bloodshed, and a complete upheaval of our commercial and industrial system. There has not been a life lost, and scarcely a pane of glass broken. I say that, with all the abuses, and they are great, the
expenditure of the country has not been altogether wasted, and hon. Members above the Gangway, representing, as they do, in many respects, the great financial interests of this country—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—they have been flinging across the Floor of the House class appeals and so on, and we get cases presented from that side of the House with regard to these great and, in my judgment, necessary interests—they may well be thankful to the party to which I belong for the fact that, with the assistance of the Labour party in the House at the time, we initiated this great system which has prevented this revolution during the past few years.
Let me address myself to the particular proposals before the House, and I shall be as brief as I can, because I know that many hon. Members are anxious to take part in the discussion. The word "anomaly" is, of course, taken from the Report, but there is not the slightest doubt that the right words is "abuse"; they are frankly abuses of legal powers. I have had the opportunity, not only for months but for years, of rather close study of this particular question, in connection with one of the great industries, and I want at once to say that to make a general, sweeping charge of an organised attempt, on the part of the industry which I have been examining, to abuse the Unemployment Insurance Act, is wrong; but it is perfectly true that it has become more and more widespread, largely owing to a steadily lowering morale of the country as a whole with regard to its dependants. That was, perhaps, inevitable. I do not see how it could be helped, in the terrible conditions in which so many people have been living upon State assistance.
There have been, to my knowledge, thousands of instances where men have refused to take the benefit which they could take if they were so disposed. I have particularly in my mind an instance of two lightermen in the Port of London, who regularly work between two and three days a week, earning £5 or £6. They are typical of a very large class who have refused to take any measure of assistance from the Insurance Fund to which they belong, and they are really fully insured people, because they work every week, and their contributions
are made accordingly. But it would be foolish for the House to imagine that this system, which the present Bill endeavours to do something to mitigate or cure, is not becoming much more widespread than it was, and, if the House will excuse me, I will give one particular instance. I selected it from my file of papers this morning, and I took it at random. There are instances which are not nearly so dramatic as this one, but I will give it to the House. I do not know the name of the man, because these matters came before us by number, but every one of these cases was vouched for and placed before us by the representatives of the men as well as of the employers; they were perfectly frank upon it.
This particular man, in a period of 17 weeks, earned over £8 twice, over £6 twice, over £5 five times, and over £4 once. In 10 weeks out of the 17 he earned over £4, and there were only two weeks out of those 17 weeks in which he did not draw unemployment benefit. That is the kind of ease with which this Bill seeks to deal, and, while at the present moment that is perfectly legal, who is there in this House who will deny the assertion I make, that neither Parliament nor anyone else ever intended that, within the limits of an Insurance Act, such a man should draw unemployment benefit? It was not intended, and there is not an hon. Member listening to me in any part of the House who can justify it.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Nonsense!

Sir D. MACLEAN: I will not argue that with my hon. Friend. If he holds that view, he desires, obviously quite honestly, a different state of society from that in which we all have to live. You might take instances like that throughout the printing industry, and throughout the whole range of those industries where there is part-time employment. I will not add anything on the question of married women; that has already been sufficiently dealt with; but, there is not the slightest doubt that not only is there a very large number of these cases, but what makes me very much annoyed is the fact that they are steadily increasing, showing perfectly clearly that what is to my mind an entirely wrong conception of the relation of the citizen to the State is growing up. That is my view, and I know it is shared by a large num-
ber of Members of this House. I hold it very strongly, because it is the basis upon which the whole of our legislation has hitherto proceeded, and it is directly in line with the basic principle, on which legislation has already been enacted by this House, that the Government should take upon themselves the onus of correcting as well as they can—it is a most difficult task for them; no one appreciates that more than I do—this anomaly and this abuse of the law as it at present stands.
Let me say a word or two about the proposals of the Bill. I fear, myself, that it is not sufficiently mandatory in its terms, and, when the Committee stage is reached, there will no doubt be arguments on that point. In the meantime, I would just say that I hope that a Measure of this great and far-reaching importance will be kept on the Floor of the House, and I shall do my best to retain it here. It contains, as hon. Members know, very far-reaching and vital changes in our method of approach to the mitigation and cure of this problem. There can be no doubt about the seriousness of the case. I think, myself, that the country as a whole is deeply concerned at the present position of unemployment benefit and the conditions under which it is poured out. Here it looks as though we were setting up just another inquiry. I hope that it will be quite evident, as the Bill goes through Committee, that that is not the intention of the Government, but that they really mean to get authority and machinery from this House to deal effectively and decisely, and as swiftly as possible, with the first step to bring this vital matter more into accordance, not only with the principles on which the Insurance Acts have been founded, but with the urgent and vital and critical financial needs of the country as a whole.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Let me say at the outset that it is my intention to oppose this Measure. The right hon. Member for North Cornwall (Sir D. Maclean) said that, from his knowledge, there was great disquiet over the question of unemployment insurance. On that I will not dispute his honesty. It all depends in what circle one moves. In my circle the grave disquiet in regard to unemployment insurance is the discontent about
people who are denied benefit. The right hon. Gentleman moves among representatives of the financial interests. I have no doubt that in his circle, comfortable and well-to-do, they are rightly annoyed that the poor should be getting anything, because giving to the poor may cost them money. I agree that this question is of great importance. The hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot) said that this is a revolutionary Measure. In my view it represents in Labour philosophy a complete alteration. I remember the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), at a Labour Conference a year or two ago, making a speech that, to some extent, was sneered at and scoffed at. He said that the Labour party was a revolutionary party. Many people disagreed with that view. The Labour party is revolutionary to this extent, that hitherto it has consistently stood for the class idea in politics. It has constantly stood for the working class point of view. This Bill takes a different point of view, and it does not stand by itself as an isolated case. If we take this Bill, following upon the attack on the wages of the civil servants, and the circular letter issued by the Minister of Health on health insurance, it represents not the class point of view of the party as a whole but the fact that the Labour party is changing its colour, its tone and its outlook, and that it joins with other parties in their attack on working class people.
This Measure, say what you like about it, twist it as you may and, if you care to base your defence of it on the argument that there are abuses, that there are people getting benefit who are not entitled to it, means, and I deny contradiction, that a sum of money is to be taken from those who are now receiving it. The Minister may not say that the amount will be £5,000,000. Some may say that the amont will be less, but in my view it will be more. Assuming that the Royal Commission's medium figure of £5,000,000 is right, it means that that amount is to be taken from working people. It may be that some of them are working at the docks, earning the fabulous figures that have been mentioned. They may one day emulate the Cabinet. They may get all the money that has been stated, but the fact is not denied that they are working people.
The sum of £5,000,000 is to be taken from them. It may be said that they are not entitled to the money but, at any rate, they are working people, and the Labour Government intends to take £5,000,000 of national money from working people. Why? To give to other working people? To get rid of other anomalies? To give it to the men and women who are constantly refused benefit, when our party knows that they should be getting benefit? No. They are taking £5,000,000 from these workers in order to save the rich at Budget time from more taxation. They are attacking the workers.
The "Forward" has been quoted. When do women who claim their legal rights become spongers? The working woman who is married if she has a legal right to benefit has a right to get it without being blackballed and libelled by a paper owned by a Cabinet Minister. He is not so superior that he can afford to libel us. He might have been decent enough, when he knew that he was a backer of this Bill, to refrain from libelling other people. There might have been some reason for this Bill if the House of Commons had been told, if our party had been told that there are those who are less deserving than other sets of people, and that we would take the £5,000,000 which would be saved from these people and give it to those who were more deserving. There might have been some justification for that. At least, it would have shown that they were not going in for robbing the workers, but that they were transferring the money from one worker to another. They do not do that. To give the money to another worker would be wrong. They are taking the money to save the faces of the Income Tax and Super Tax payers.
Take the Measure in itself. It is supposed to deal with four classes of workpeople. Who are those classes? I shall have something to say about the short-time and casual worker later. The right hon. Member for North Cornwall said that Parliament had never intended that the man to whom he referred should get benefit. I would remind him that in 1927 the Conservative Government, in which the hon. Member opposite was Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour, passed an Act which gave that man benefit. That was not a Labour Act
of Parliament, but a Conservative Act. That Act operated in 1927 and 1928, before the Labour Government came into office. Who said it was wrong? Was there any outcry then against the £8 a week man getting benefit? No. The outcry has come now. He is not to get his benefit as he did under the Tory Act. Is it not a terrible thing that Labour men, elected to improve the conditions of the working people as against the Tories, are actually seeking to pass an Act which will be worse than the Tory Act. I would ask trade unionists whether it is their object to make an Act affecting working people worse than was the Act passed by the Tories. There was no outcry in those days. There was no question in the House of Commons about the £8 a week man. There was no Press agitation. When and why did the agitation start? It started because there was the will to move. If you have the will to move anything you will believe anything. It started with the will. The Minister gave evidence. The Minister's officials backed the Commission with evidence, and in turn every newspaper loaded its columns and its contents bills telling us of these awful anomalies.
The agitation has started. It reminds me of what happened during war-time. We were told about munition workers having fur coats and pianos. We were told of munition workers earning £30 and £40 a week, while other people were going home wondering how they were going to manage to make ends meet. They picked out cases. They had the will to believe it. They wanted to believe it. They got up an agitation, and the Press carried it on. What is the amount of justification for this Bill? There never was any agitation in this House or outside it or in the trade unions for cutting down the short-time of the casual worker. If you read the evidence of the Trade Union Congress you find that it is contradictory of every line of this Bill. Since when have we changed? The married woman is denounced. I will let hon. Members, if they will, multiply their cases about married women. Since when has our movement changed its mind? The abuses are blamed on the married women. It always seems to me that women are blamed. When a Cabinet Minister goes wrong and we look for an excuse, we say that it is a woman. If
a Member of Parliament fails to keep his promise someone comes along and says that it is because of his wife or a woman. Always, if you want to lay the blame, you say it is a woman. You always get a woman. Better still, get a married woman.
It may be said that some of the unemployed people want the married women off the lists. I will not deny it. Let me say this regarding the unemployed. There is a feeling, I know, among the unemployed men that at the courts of referees they are not protected. They have always the terrible feeling that they are living day in and day out in the fear that they will be knocked off. They are always living in an atmosphere of uncertainty. These men feel—it may be wrong, but it is human—that if somebody else goes off they may remain on. Not that it is just, not that it is right, but their feeling is, that if somebody else is off they might be all right. During the War I worked in a factory, and I was single. The married fellows came along and said; "You are for the Army, and we may escape." But they did not. They all went. What about the married women under this Bill. Does this misnamed Measure say that the married women are not to receive benefit? No. When we were making proposals upstairs for this Measure we were told about the dentist's wife. It was said that it was not intended that she should get benefit. Does this Bill say that she is not to get benefit? Can anyone in this House say that the dentist's wife, the wife of a well-to-do man, is to be refused benefit? The Bill says that it will be the duty of the Advisory Committee to see that there are a prescribed number of sums, and, after that, she will get benefit. The dentist's wife wishes to get benefit. If she can get eight weeks' work, which they might prescribe as the number, or 10 weeks, after marriage, she will get benefit. If, on the other hand, she is not a dentist's wife but the wife of a labourer, say an immigrant from the North of Scotland, with no influence, and none to get her work, but her need greater, there is no benefit. The senior Member for Sunderland (Dr. Phillips) was asked in evidence about married women being disqualified. It was put to her that a woman who has paid her insurance during
her industrial life, when she is single, loses benefit when she is married, and she was asked, "You do not approve of that?" She answered:
It is not only that I do not approve of it, but, luckily, married women have votes, and I should say it would be entirely impossible for any Parliament in this country to penalise those women.

Dr. MARION PHILLIPS: I still hold exactly to that, but I do not think the hon. Member has given a full understanding of the question. I hope to give it later on.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I have read it all. I have the biggest biscuit factory in the world in my Division. It is owned by the Co-operative Society and employs thousands of women. They are dismissed immediately on marriage. Many of them are anxious for work, but cannot get it. In a neighbouring constituency there is another biscuit factory which does not employ trade unionists. There the women are kept on after marriage long enough to qualify. The organised are penalised and the unorganised are not. The married women problem presents itself in another way. I look on my colleagues on all sides of the House, and I am struck, not being a Puritan, with the large number of people who follow Puritan standards, men of very high religious renown who sincerely hold their views. What are we proposing to do now? A married woman must qualify after marriage. If she does not enter into marriage but cohabits with a man, she gets benefit. If you go straightforwardly and marry, you are penalised, hut if you live in sin you get benefit. That is this Bill. The Secretary for War may sneer, but can he deny it? If a child is born out of wedlock, the priest will go to the man and try to convince him to marry the girl. Under this Bill, if he refuses to carry out what the clergy rightly ask him, the woman will get benefit. The man will be well off. He can live with her. If he refuses, the State will subsidise him and will pay benefit. Surely never was there greater condemnation of a Measure.
May I put this to my mining colleagues? In Lancashire there are opportunities for married women workers following their employment after marriage. You may have a man in Lancashire earning £3 or £4 a week, and his wife gets work. In a mining village the
men earn, it may be, less than half that sum. The Labour party is going to say, "We will punish you, not because you are not willing to work, not because you are not needing to work, but because you were born in Wales and not in Lancashire." That is your Measure. In the mining valleys, the opportunities for a woman to work are limited. If she is in Lancashire, though the need may be less, certainly not greater, because she is born there and lives there, this Bill will give her benefit.
Let me take the short-time worker. This party was built up by trade union money. The Bill gives power to inquire into earnings. If a man earns £2 10s. in three days, he is not to be paid for the other three. He has been in a union. He is organised. He has fought, and he has won his £2 10s. for his three days. If he had not been in the union and had not organised and fought and won, he would only get 30s. This party, built up by trade union money, says, "If you had not joined your union, if you had not built up an organisation, you would only have had 30s. and we would have given you State money." In my Division there are a large number of men earning on an average in three days about 25s. to 30s. They will never organise. I have got them in, but they went out. If they organised to-morrow and joined forces, they could raise their wage standard to £3 10s. The moment they join a union and are organised, the Labour Government will come along and will say, "That is wrong. You should not have demanded those wages, because, the moment you demand them, we will deprive you of unemployment benefit." Can trade unionists defend that? Take the intermittent worker, the week-end watchman. The right hon. Lady said she knew of shop assistants who only wanted to work two days a week. How does she know? What is her proof? What right has she to say what test she will apply to those workers? Where are the women? Who are they? She comes to the House and creates a bogey that is not there and asks us to believe it. Let her produce her evidence here where we can examine it in the light of day. In this Bill it is not the shop assistant, but the week-end watchman. He does not earn £8 a week or even £1. The seasonal worker is also to be attacked. The girl
who goes into the fish curing industry is going to be attacked. The Labour party was built up on the theory that poverty is not the fault of the individual, but the fault of the system, and, therefore, a man should not be punished for something over which he has no control.
The policy of the Labour party used to be "work or maintenance," and now they go and punish a man or woman for something over which he or she has no control. Who is there in this House who can say that the seasonal workers have any control over their lives? Who can say truthfully and honestly that the seasonal worker is idle because he or she desires to be idle? Under this Bill you are going to attack, not the £8 a week man, not the rich dentist's wife, but seasonal workers who for 10, 12 or 14 weeks are in work and are unable to get work for the rest of the year. This is the Labour party. This is the Measure which has been introduced, and one of its backers is the Lord Privy Seal. Is this what we are to expect from the Lord Privy Seal who has promulgated so many ideals? I remember the Lord Privy Seal as editor of "Forward" when he attacked War Loan interest. The robbers, he said, should be attacked and their money taken from them. Almost the first Measure that be backs is not an attack upon War Loan interest, but an attack upon the poor. I should have thought that his first Measure would have been one to implement his promise to get 300,000 miners back at work in the production of oil from coal. One might have thought he would have continued in those pursuits, but to-day he backs this Measure.
I often wonder if the Labour party are simple, or whether they are misleading themselves. Take the commission. The commission has been denounced in every part of the country. The commission presented an interim report. Whose interim report is it? It is not the commission's. I object to the dishonesty of denouncing somebody else for doing something over which that somebody had no control. Whose interim report is it? The Government's. The commission did not want to report, but the Government forced them to do so. You have denounced, not the people who have forced the commission to report, but the commission who did not want to report at
all. What does the Birmingham "Town Crier," one of the Labour papers, say about the advisory committee? It says that it is as well that we gave a majority to the Tories on the commission because now we have learned what the Tories want to do. On the advisory committee there is a majority against us almost as great as that on the commission, and yet we are to expect justice. While all the red words are still flowing in denunciation of the Royal Commission, the Government say that now they will trust a second Royal Commission composed of the same people. The last Royal Commission have not only made a report, but they have recommended to the Ministry the power to refuse benefit.
Our people are being told that there is to be Parliamentary control, but the things that are being said to our people are not creditable either to the speakers or to our movement. Those taking part in this movement may succeed for a month or a year, but ultimately their judgment day will come. We are told that we have Parliamentary control. Never was there a greater lie. What is the truth? The Minister, after we adjourn at the end of this month, can, in the second week thereafter, issue a regulation which can be worked during the whole of the holidays. It is said that reports will be laid before Parliament and that private Members can come down to the House and fight. Fight whom? The Government? It is an utter impossibility after 11 o'clock at night. I am surprised at the attitude of certain hon. Members here. I remember the Secretary of State for India, when he was a protector of freedom, standing up at the end of the bench opposite and attacking the system when the Government of the day were introducing Safeguarding. It is bad for Safeguarding. It is wrong for Safeguarding, but it is, oh, so right when attacking the poor.
You may defend your Measure to-day. Some hon. Members may get up and say that there are a number of married women wrongfully getting benefit and some short-timers earning considerable sums getting benefit. As far as an amateur can do so, I have calculated that no fewer than 300,000 people will be affected by this Measure in a year. I will be generous, and cut off 150,000 of them as being persons drawing fabulous
sums. But what about the other 150,000? I will even go so far as to say that there may be only 50,000 poor people made poorer by this Measure. But it would then be a terrible indictment of the Labour party. The Labour party, built up on wrongs and sufferings, are to-day engaged in the foul conspiracy of robbing those 50,000 people.
This Bill will not end there. It will be extended. The Minister said that it is only an experiment. Next year more. Where are your anomalies going to stop? I can quote the case of a neighbour of mine, a young man, who is drawing benefit and has £12 a week coming into the house. You must stop that. You cannot stop there. Take the short-time worker earning £2 10s. a week. He receives an income of £130 a year. If another man earns £4 10s. a week for 40 weeks he will get £180 a year. The man who gets £180 a year will get benefit for 11 weeks, having only paid 40 contributions, but the man who has paid 52 contributions and has earned £130—£50 less—is not to receive a single day's benefit. You call that wiping out anomalies. You are creating anomalies which will give benefit to those who live in sin. What a way. What a Measure. It is on which I shall do my best to oppose. The Bill is wrong from every point of view.
One or two friends of mine have said, "George, do not vote against the Second Reading of the Bill; it can be amended in Committee." There is not a good line in it. There is nothing to commend it. I shall go into the Lobby regretfully. It may be said by comrades of mine that I may like doing so. I regret having to oppose the Bill. I would much sooner this Bill had not been brought in. We shall be challenged and pilloried. Secret meetings and conclaves will be held. For my part, I have one or two loyalties. Loyalty I have to my party, and none more so, but, greater than that loyalty, the greatest loyalty to me, is my loyalty to the poor from whence I sprung, and nothing, not even secret meetings and a threat against my livelihood, will ever make me desert those folk who have given me bread.

Mr. OLIVER STANLEY: It has been my misfortune on a previous occasion to follow the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) in one of these Debates, and it is no light burden for anyone to follow
an hon. Member who speaks with such eloquence and sincerity upon a subject in regard to which he feels so keenly. There is the further difficulty which makes Debate between the hon. Member and myself, within the confines of a Bill such as this, almost impossible,—the fundamental divergence between us goes far deeper and lies far wider than this or any similar Bill. His whole conception of the state of society which it is possible to build up, and his whole conception of financial possibilities and economic laws differ entirely from mine. He believes that State taxation does no more than inconvenience the rich who have to pay it while benefiting the poor who receive it. I believe that that taxation does more than inconvenience the rich. I believe that at the same time it damages the poor, and that the expenditure which seems so simple in this House, and appears to be putting direct benefits into the pockets of those whom the hon. Member represents, and sincerely represents, is, in fact, putting a small benefit into their pockets every week and at the same time withdrawing from them for ever the chance of what they want more than doles—the chance of regular employment. It is because of the fundamental difference which exists between us that a Debate upon the lines of his speech is almost impossible.
But just as I can look across that gulf at the hon. Member and recognise that the views which he holds, wrongly as I believe, are views which he holds with sincerity, so he can look across the gulf at me and believe that I hold equally sincerely views which he condemns. The hon. Member has, indeed, some cause of complaint, not against me or my hon. Friends on this side of the House, but against right hon. Members who sit upon his own Front Bench. The hon. Member might well have thought from the philosophy upon which the Labour movement has been built up that those hon. and right hon. Members sit on his side of the gulf, not on mine, and that they hold to-day the views which have been expressed so often in the past, of the inexhaustible fund of wealth in the hands of the few idle rich which only needed a strong Socialist Government to distribute to the deserving poor. It must be a shock to him, as to many who
have helped to build up the Labour movement, to find to-day that those hon. and right hon. Members are with us.
The speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in introducing the Budget of this year was the death-knell of the Socialist party. What was his argument? It was that we must avoid taxation, we must attempt this expedient and that expedient, in an effort to avoid taxation, to avoid any more being put on the Income Tax and any more on the Super-Tax. Why? Was it because the Chancellor of the Exchequer is a friend of the rich? Was it because he is afraid of the inconvenience it may cause them, and does not want to hurt their pockets? Or was it because he believed that more taxation would hurt industry and employment, and that more men would lose jobs? If that is consistent with the Socialism which the hon. Member for Gorbals advocates, and which I have no doubt the hon. Member who is sneering at my remarks has often preached at the street-corners in his constituency, then I say it is the death-knell of Socialism.

Mr. VAUGHAN: I was not sneering at the hon. Member or doing anything of the kind. He has quite misunderstood me.

Mr. STANLEY: I am sorry if I thought that the hon. Member was sneering. I now understand that he was only disagreeing with kindliness. Let me pass from the fundamental conception upon which the hon. Member's speech was built and return, without the gloss of his eloquence and oratory, to the type of cases we are considering in this Bill. My sympathy with the hon. Member increases. We are here asked to deal with certain anomalies which arise, not in the system which the hon. Member desires, and not in the system which right hon. Members opposite could enforce without a General Election, which seems so far away from sight, but in the system which exists to-day, a system which enables a married woman who has happened in the past to have had employment, and therefore come into an insurable occupation, but who has married today with no intention of returning to employment, to draw benefit, while alongside her is a married woman who in her single days never qualified for benefit,
and who now being married does not want to return to employment and is unable to draw anything at all. Why that distinction? I could have understood it if every married woman with a family should not be dependent on her industrial past or future, that the mere fact that she was married should entitle her to benefit, but if, in fact, you are going to draw a distinction on industrial grounds how can you say——

Mr. BUCHANAN: This Bill does not deal with the married woman. She does not want work; she wants benefit, and under this Bill there is a prescribed number of weeks she has to work after her marriage. If she gets work, she still gets benefit. You are not stopping the married woman from getting benefit. In fact, she is the only woman who will get it.

Mr. STANLEY: I think the hon. Member is under a misapprehension as to the terms of the Bill. What happens is this: Married women who in any prescribed period subsequent to marriage have paid less than the prescribed number of contributions come under the terms of any regulation the Minister may make; the must satisfy the requirements with respect to the receipt of benefit. Undoubtedly, the Minister of Labour will impose conditions with the precise object of eliminating the type of cases to which the hon. Member has referred. He drew attention to the case raised by the right hon. Member for North Cornwall (Sir D. Maclean) of the man who with two days work in the week drew £4 a week. Does he really think that under the present system it is fair that men in work should draw 17s. a week while the man who has nothing to depend upon should draw the same amount?

Mr. BUCHANAN: That has been the law from 1927 to 1929, and you never made any attempt to amend it. It has been going on for years. You have only discovered it now because the newspapers have picked out one case.

Mr. STANLEY: It has not been discovered now because the newspapers have picked out one case. It has been discovered by the Minister of Labour in the examples which have been given to the knowledge of hon. Members, and by the evidence brought before the Royal
Commission, and by the report of the Royal Commission which was set up by the Government to answer their questions. The only thing I cannot understand about the hon. Member's speech is that he is so much concerned about this. He does not realise that the operation of this Bill will rest, not in the hands of Parliament, not in the hands of hon. Members on this side of the House, not even in the hands of this Committee, on which as he thinks there is a majority against the class he represents, but in the hands of the Minister. Hon. Members opposite know their Minister of Labour; they have known her for two years. Have they ever known her to do anything? Does the hon. Member for Gorbals really anticipate that if the Bill becomes law and these tiresome discussions are out of the way the right hon. Lady is going to operate the powers conferred upon her by this Bill? I cannot believe, from anything in her past, that this will be the case, and it is because I differ from the hon. Member on that point that I find it so difficult to make up my attitude as to this Bill.
Usually when a Bill is presented one's political principles, or party principles, or personal predelictions—they may not always be the same—almost immediately dictate the course one is to follow, but, on the other hand, many hon. Members on this side of the House share with me a doubt as to what our attitude should be upon the Bill. It may mean so much; it may mean so little; it may be a great experiment which will revolutionise the whole unemployment insurance, and it may be just one more of those smokescreens which the fertile ingenuity of the right hon. Lady has so often evolved since she assumed her office. There is one fundamental error in this Bill from whatever point of view you look at it.
I must disagree, though slightly, with the interesting and novel statement made by the hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot). He pointed out that this was a new departure in the way of withdrawing from the control of the House of Commons and the responsibility of hon. Members the execution of certain Acts and handing them over to the control of outside bodies and commissions and committees. I must point out that this Bill stops half way and gives the control to the Minister, but there is
nothing which prevents the Minister handing that control on to impartial outside bodies which are to rescue Parliament and the politician from the tyranny of vote-catching appeals. As a matter of fact, the committee which is set up under this Bill is absolutely powerless; it has absolutely no functions whatever. Unless the right hon. Lady chooses to send certain matters to it for reference it will never have a job of work to do. If she does send certain questions to it she can ignore its report when it makes it. These men may be selected for their knowledge and experience of the working of these Acts. They may see under their noses anomalies and abuses continuing which they know ought to be remedied, but they are absolutely powerless to do anything in the matter. They have no power to investigate, and no power to report.
The whole initiative in the Bill rests with the right hon. Lady, and there is nothing in her past record which leads one to believe that she is strong enough to do that. The organisation set up is a hybrid one. It has none of the merits which responsible control of Parliament may still have. It has none of the merits which a new independent organisation of the future may show. It has the demerits of both and the advantages of neither, but, at any rate, one can say that it is more than the right hon. Lady has done in the past. She is, of course, largely the cause of this Bill. A great many of the anomalies which we are now setting out to cure have been caused by her. Hon. Members will remember December, 1929, when she came down to the House with a new Clause in her Bill designed to substitute another test for that of genuinely seeking work. She marched her troops up the hill—and then she marched them down again. The Attorney-General on one day with great sincerity blew the charge, and with equal sincerity on the next day blew the retreat. To-day for the first time the right hon. Lady since that crusade, which she must regret, has shown a little courage. It is, at any rate, the first recognition she has given of the need for action rather than talk. It is the first time she has tried to do anything without saying before she does it that she must have another few months for consultation and thought. On the whole, meaningless as the Bill may prove and impossible as it
is to know its effect, while it is but a poor thing, it is the right hon. Lady's alone, and for that reason I think we should give it a Second Beading.

Mr. SPEAKER: Sir Oswald Mosley——

6.0 p.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: On a point of Order. Seeing that there are so many hon. Members who are anxious to intervene in this Debate, Members who have been constant in attendance and have been helping the work of the House and in Committee and elsewhere, is there any special rule or regulation whereby an hon. Member who absents himself for several months at a time is to have the special privilege of speaking when he wishes to do so?

Mr. SPEAKER: There is a note of complaint in the remarks of the hon. Member. I should rather have thought that he would have commiserated with me on the multiplication of parties in this House.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Further to that point of Order. I certainly do commiserate with you, Mr. Speaker, in your extreme difficulty; but am I to understand from your statement that the best guarantee to be able to advertise one's presence and to be able to speak in this House is merely to form a new party?

Mr. SPEAKER: I should be sorry to pass any comment upon that statement.

Mr. MACLEAN: May I put this point to you, Mr. Speaker? All the speeches that have been delivered already, with the exception of the speech of the Minister of Labour, have been speeches against the Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Yes; there were certain points in their speeches which were against the Bill. The hon. Member for Smethwick (Sir O. Mosley) and the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) have, both of them, Amendments on the Paper against the Bill. One of them is still a member of the Labour party, and the other is the leader of a new party, but, at the same time, he has been looked upon, until his entry into the House, as a, member of the Labour party. Consequently it appears that in the selection of Members from the Labour Benches those are being selected who are speaking against the Bill and not in favour of it.

Mr. SPEAKER: When the hon. Member puts a point of Order he might listen
to what I have to say in reply. As to whether speeches of hon. Members are in favour of or against a Bill, my difficulty is that, even after a speech is made, very often I do not know whether it is for or against a Bill

Sir OSWALD MOSLEY: I can assure the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), who is so anxious to ensure my attendance in this House, that I shall always be here on the rare occasions on which his Government produce a Measure of the slightest importance to the country or one that has any relevance to the national situation. We have had the remarkable view expressed that all the speeches delivered in this Debate have been delivered against the Bill. I, on the contrary, was under the impression that a perfect harmony prevailed between the Conservative, the Labour and the Liberal parties in support of the Bill, that we have been attending a love-feast, a new coalition of all the three senior parties on this occasion, in support of the Bill. The first discordant note in the Debate was the eloquent speech of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). I am afraid that it is my unhappy lot to strike another discordant note, although of a rather different nature.
It has been admitted that there has been for long considerable disquiet among large sections of the public as to the conditions under which unemployment insurance is administered at the present time, and this Bill is the response of the Government to that agitation. It cannot be denied that anomalies existed in the legislation which has grown up over a long period of time—grown up in a series of Measures and in a very haphazard fashion. It also cannot be denied, as the hon. Member for Gorbals incidentally pointed out, that the anomalies are not all on one side. Some of them operate against the working class; others often, doubtless, operate in favour of the working class. This Bill is being brought forward in the name of equity, of righting wrong, of removing anomalies. Why, then, were these considerations of equity so long absent from the minds of this Government and of their predecessors? Why have these gross abuses, as they are now called, been allowed to remain so long upon the Statute Book? They were
allowed to remain on the Statute Book unchecked and unaltered until the demand for economy became strong in the country.
To call this a Measure of equity, whatever the merits of the Bill, is, of course, a complete misnomer. It is a Measure of economy, and nothing else. There are hon. Members now on the Opposition side whose Government permitted these abuses to continue. The present Government permitted these abuses to continue until the whole fabric of unemployment insurance began to crumble and collapse, in the absence of any policy to reconstruct the industries of the country. Of this both the present Government and their predecessors were alike guilty. Not only that, but the absence of policy, will or decision in any party in the State has reduced the whole insurance system of the country to collapse and catastrophe. Not until then did we have a demand put forward in the name of equity, a demand which is really a demand for economy, to save, at the expense of one section of the population, the whole insurance system from disaster.
I submit that in this matter there are two inalienable rights. The first right is that of the man or woman who has paid the requisite number of contributions, to draw unemployment benefits when out of work. That is a contractual right, just as strong as the right of any hon. Member to know that his descendants will draw the results of a policy he has taken out on his life, when he is dead. If a man pays his unemployment contributions a requisite number of times he has a perfect right, when out of work, to draw benefit. This Bill does not discriminate. It does not raise the principle of transitional benefit at all; it falls on transitional and normal benefit alike.

Mr. BUCHANAN: It falls on people with an insurance qualification.

Sir O. MOSLEY: I think that that is true, and that the case can be put even more strongly than that. If the requisite contributions have been paid and the man is out of work, he has a contractual right to draw his benefit, just as strong as the right of my children or the children of any hon. Member to draw the result of a policy on which we have paid premiums all our lives, if we are dead.
Equally on the other side the State, which is the guardian of the fund, and is in the position of the insurance company in normal transactions, has the right to be sure that a man is out of work, just as our descendants have a right to be sure that we are in fact dead. Those are two rights which have to be met in any equitable system. How can they be secured, the right of the individual and of the State? I submit that there is only one way to determine whether a man is out of work or not, and that is to provide him with work. That is the only fair way, and there is no other way. If you have not that test you are keeping out scores of people who are entitled to benefit.
This is a sliding scale, not in accordance with equity, but in accordance with the demand for economy, stiffened up, made more difficult as your fund begins to collapse, and the demand for economy and the agitation and the very justifiable fear of the country begin to increase. We had the same trouble in another way over the question of "genuinely seeking work." There, again, the only test of the man "genuinely seeking work" is to provide him with a job. If he refuses a job he is not genuinely seeking work; if he accepts a job he is genuinely seeking work and by accepting it qualifies to come back into the insurance system. The absence of any policy by the present Government or its predecessor to provide work, made that test impossible, and so we have had varying conditions applied from time to time, sometimes operating more or less fairly and at other times more harshly.
Now we come to the present occasion, with exactly the same dilemma. The question now is, not whether a man is genuinely seeking work, but whether or not he is entitled to draw benefit, whether he is really unemployed in the conditions of his trade. If you had a job available to present in this £8 a week case, of which we hear so much, if the Government could say, "We have some constructive work schemes in your neighbourhood. We do not believe that you are really out of employment. You can take a job at whatever rate the Government has laid down under trade union conditions"—it would be certainly less than £8 a week—one of two things would
happen. That £8 a week man takes the job and so shows the genuineness of his search for work, or he refuses the job and becomes disqualified for benefit. You have there an immediate test and a fail-test, applicable to every conceivable case, the moment that a Government has within its hands a job to offer the unemployed man.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: What about the case of the docker? The Government cannot make work at the dock when there is not any work there.

Sir O. MOSLEY: I must refer the hon. Member to "Can Lloyd George Do It?"

Mr. BROWN: The point is this. No one has suggested in that policy that dockers getting two days' work a week should be put on work of construction. The hon. Member's argument seems to be that the man who is now getting a certain amount of work should be given work in another trade, and work different from that which he is doing.

Sir O. MOSLEY: Again I think "We can Conquer Unemployment" will remove the hon. Member's doubt, if after a painful lapse of time it represents the policy which he was returned to support. Suppose that work for 600,000 men had been provided by a real Liberal Government, of which the hon. Member would have been a distinguished member. In every area jobs would have been available, provided by the State, and if the docker or the other man who is getting the £8 a week came along and said, "I am out of a job and want to draw benefit," the Government would say, "Here is a whole-time job for you, provided by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs; not a wretched part-time job which throws you on benefit, but a- whole-time job under the Liberal scheme for conquering unemployment." Immediately you would apply to him the only fair and proper test which, in the event of his refusal, would properly disqualify him. No, it is the abandonment of all these work schemes by Liberal party and Labour party alike, which places them in this dilemma.
To-day the spokesman of the Liberal party comes along, not with proposals to put 600,000 men into work or to put one man into work. All that has been dropped since the new alliance and coalition. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] They
come along now, not with proposals to put one man into work, but with a proposal to economise, to save £5,000,000 and save the whole structure of the State! Back from "We can Conquer Unemployment"; back to retrenchment, but anyhow not peace within for the Liberal party. All the great constructive plans and proposals thrown overboard by them, as they have been thrown overboard long ago by the Government. No, Sir, it is the complete absence of any policy of any kind, either to reconstruct the industries of this country upon a permanent basis, or to provide short-term relief works of an economic character—it is the absence of that policy alone, which confronts the Government and the House with the dilemma of this legislation.
I should not be in order in going in any detail into proposals which we have discussed so often in this House, but I have often ventured to suggest not only that a long-term policy to reconstruct the industries of this country—utterly lacking in the present Government—was necessary, but also a policy of constructive relief works to bridge the gulf between the present and the fruition of that long-term policy. That plan would preserve the capacity to work and incidentally provide the only fair and proper test of those genuinely seeking work and those entitled to draw benefit. Until measures of this nature, which I submit are the truest economies that could be undertaken, are adopted by Governments, we shall stumble from Measure to Measure of this nature until you have a universal bullying of the unemployed population of this country.
What are the methods to be adopted under these proposals? The Regulations made by the Minister are to be laid on the Table of the House, and, if unchallenged, are to have the force of law. As the hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove pointed out, those proposals have a familiar ring. I have no objection to the methods; I only object to the end. But why are these method" denounced as dictatorship when I put them forward, and hailed as the pure milk of "Labour and the Nation" when the Government put them forward? I ventured to suggest arbitrary methods to put men into jobs. The Government adopt arbitrary methods to put men out of benefit. That is the difference between us. The
Government are placing in the hands of the Minister executive authority, and for what purposes is it to be used? Not for constructive purposes, not for rebuilding the industries of the nation, not for putting a single man or woman into work.
If you propose it for those purposes you are proposing a dictatorship and aiming a fatal blow at the British Constitution, and threatening the whole structure of British liberty. But if you come along not to build up but to cut down, to harry and bully a few poor people and save a few million pounds, then you can place in the hands of the Minister any powers you like to give him. Then you do not make him put his regulations into an Act of Parliament, because that would reveal his purpose and his Act would get a rough passage from his own back benchers. No, in that case give him his powers in the dark and let them operate afterwards, not, as I say, for the rebuilding of this country but for the purpose of cutting down. Anything is right when you are on the retreat, but nothing is to be permitted when you are on the advance. That is the method to which the Labour Government in its complete absence of policy in its surrender of every belief to which it was ever attached has, at last, been reduced.
This is a very small symptom of a general tendency. All over this country wages are being reduced and will be further reduced. Social services are being attacked; standards are being reduced, and, as these things are cut down, the home market, which is the last great field for British industry, is being progressively reduced and the great trade union movement, which came into existence to maintain those standards, is forced to acquiesce in their reduction, without a word, without a kick, because if it did protest it might bring down the Government to which it is attached. To what a pass has the great trade union and working class movement in this country been reduced under the leadership which it now enjoys. I have already suggested that if you want a test of those who are entitled to draw benefit or are seeking work, you should offer them jobs but that depends upon an executive efficiency which the Government have not shown.
In any case, in relation to the magnitude of this problem this Bill is totally irrelevant. It is tinkering with the situation and playing with it and pretending to the country that you are really doing something, when you know that you are still doing nothing at all. By this little Measure you buy until the Autumn another short lease of your own miserable lives. You buy it at the expense of the poorest of your supporters who voted for you in more lavish days. You buy it at the expense of British industry which your continued existence in power places in ever-increasing jeopardy. That is the contribution of this Measure. That is the position of the Government; and it is a tribute to the strength and vitality of this country that, under these handicaps, it can still continue to look forward not without some hope in the not too-distant future, to the emergence of some force and some policy.

Major MILNER: For a number of reasons, but mainly because there has been other work to do, I have rarely troubled the House during recent months, but I feel that this Measure is of such importance that I ought to intervene on this occasion. In the first place, as I understand it, this is a Measure to deal with anomalies in unemployment insurance, as a corollary to the provisions which have quite recently been before the House whereby the Government and the House have provided £25,000,000 of increased borrowing powers for the Unemployment Insurance Fund and have therefore, to that extent, provided that amount for the payment of unemployment benefit. In the second place, this Measure indicates that, contrary to the belief which hon. Members opposite try to instil into people, the Government are ready and willing to deal with proved anomalies as and when satisfactory evidence of them is brought to notice. It will be observed that I use the term "anomalies." I disagree entirely with the word "abuses" which has been used by a right hon. Gentleman opposite, and I disagree also with the term "gross abuses" which I think I am right in saying was expressly used by the hon. Baronet the Member for Smeth-wick (Sir O. Mosley).

Sir O. MOSLEY: I was quoting.

Major MILNER: The Royal Commission made it clear that the term "abuses" was not a fair term in this connection and that a fair word was "anomalies" and they went on to say:
We wish to make it clear that the classes of claims which have been criticised as not properly within an insurance scheme, are permissible under existing legislation.
I, therefore, take strong exception to expressions such as "spongers" and "dole-mongers" so frequently used in this House and elsewhere to describe those who are only claiming that to which they are entitled by law. I have taken the trouble to look up the meaning of the word "anomalies" in Webster's Dictionary, and I find it there defined as "an irregularity," or "a deviation from the ordinary rule," or, in astronomy—and this is a definition which I feel sure will commend itself to the hon. Member for Smethwick—"the irregular motion of a planet." [HON. MEMBERS: "With satellites!"] I might add, as suggested by my hon. Friends, a planet which is surrounded and accompanied by satellites. May I, incidentally, congratulate the hon. Baronet on his rather tardy attendance here? I think he is to be congratulated, because it must be a little difficult in the midst of such absorbing pastimes as fencing and polo to find time to attend to one's duties in this House. The hon. Baronet indicated that he would always be present when any important Measure affecting the interests of the workers was before the House, but we had not the pleasure of seeing him here during the last week or two when the £25,000,000 to which I have referred was being provided for unemployment benefit.
We have had the usual homily and dissertation from the hon. Baronet, whose principal complaint is that the Government have no policy. But where has he been during the past few weeks? I am aware that he did the representatives of Leeds in this House the honour of arranging a meeting of the New party in that city, but he himself, no doubt to the great regret of the Leeds people, did not grace that meeting with his presence. He left what was perhaps a rather difficult undertaking to an extremely courageous lady, namely, the hon. Member for Stoke (Lady Cynthia Mosley). But notwithstanding that meeting, the name of the hon. Baronet the Member for Smethwick is
never heard in these days in the City of Leeds:

ROYAL ASSENT.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.

The House went; and, having returned, Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to—

1. Housing (Rural Workers) Amendment Act, 1931.
2. Mining Industry ("Welfare Fund) Act, 1931.
3. Sentence of Death (Expectant Mothers) Act, 1931.
4. Unemployment Insurance (No. 2) Act, 1931.
5. Mauritius Loan (Guarantee) Act, 1931.
6. Coal Mines Act, 1931.
7. Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (City of Worcester) Act, 1931.
8. Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (Manchester and South Staffordshire Joint Smallpox Hospital District) Act, 1931.
9. Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (Accrington and Leicester) Act, 1931.
10. Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (Herne Bay Water and Southend Water) Act, 1931.
11. Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (Aylesbury Joint Hospital District and Stratford and District Gas Board) Act, 1931.
12. Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (Birkenhead and Chepping Wycombe) Act, 1931.
13. Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (Frimley and Farnborough Water and Great Berkhampstead Water) Act, 1931.
14. Kincardine-on-Forth Bridge Order Confirmation Act, 1931.
15. Wallasey Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Order Confirmation Act, 1931.
16. Portsmouth Corporation Act, 1931.
17. Southern Railway Act, 1931.
18. Tamworth Corporation Act, 1931.
19. Epsom Urban District Council Act, 1931.
2150
20. Trowbridge, Melksham and District Water Board Act, 1931.
21. Gas Light and Coke Company Act, 1931.
22. London Midland and Scottish Railway Act, 1931.
23. Ventnor Urban District Council Act, 1931.
24. Hackney Borough Council Act, 1931.
25. London County Council (Money) Act, 1931.
26. Rotherham Rural District Council Act, 1931.
27. Royston and Brodsworth Gas Act, 1931.
28. London County Council (Vauxhall Cross Improvement) Act, 1931.
29. Coventry Extension Act, 1931.
30. Doncaster Corporation Act, 1931.
31. Romford Urban District Council Act, 1931.
32. London County Council (General Powers) Act, 1931.
33. West Ham Corporation Act, 1931.
34. Great Western Railway Act, 1931.
35. Yorkshire (Woollen District) Trans port Act, 1931.

And to the following Measures passed under the provisions of the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919:

1. Benefices (Exercise of Bights of Presentation) Measure, 3931.
2. Channel Islands (Church Legislation) Measure, 1931.
3. Channel Islands (Representation) Measure, 1931.
4. Ecclesiastical Commissioners (Provision for Unbeneficed Clergy) Measure, 1928 (Amendment) Measure, 1931.
5. Cathedrals Measure, 1931.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (No. 3) [MONEY].

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 71A.

[Sir ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair.]

Resolved,
That it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Minister of Labour under any Act of the present Session to provide for the amendment, in relation to certain classes of persons, of the enactments relating to unemployment insurance with a view to the elimination of anomalies in the operation of those enactments, and to provide for facilitating the removal of workers and their dependants from one place to another."—[King's Recommendation signified.]—[Miss Bondfield.]

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

HOUSING (RURAL AUTHORITIES) [EXPENSES].

Resolution reported;
That it is expedient—
(a) to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of such special contributions, payable annually for a period of forty years, as the Minister of Health and the Department of Health for Scotland, respectively, may, on the recommendation of committees appointed by them with the approval of the Treasury and on such conditions as they may with the like approval determine, undertake to make towards the expenses to be incurred by rural district councils in England in providing houses in agricultural parishes for agricultural workers and persons of substantially the same economic position, and by county councils in Scotland in providing houses for such persons as aforesaid in rural areas;
Provided that—

(i) such contributions shall be made only to councils who satisfy the said committees, acting in accordance with such general directions as may be given to them by the Minister or, as the case may be, by the Department, that their
2232
financial resources are insufficient to enable them without such assistance to make adequate provision in regard to the matters, aforesaid;
(ii) the rents to be charged for houses in respect of which such contributions are made shall not, notwithstanding anything in Section three of the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1924, exceed such sums as the Minister and the Department respectively may, in accordance with the recommendations of the said committees, determine; and
(iii) the present capital values of such contributions, as calculated at the dates when the Minister and the Department respectively undertake to make them, shall not in the aggregate exceed, as respects England, eighty ninety-first parts and, as respects Scotland, eleven ninety-first parts of the sum of two million pounds;

(b) to authorise the Minister and the Department respectively to assist rural district councils in England and county councils in Scotland in providing dwelling accommodation in such localities and for such persons as are mentioned in the pre ceding paragraph by themselves acquiring land and erecting houses, or by arranging with some other Government Department to acquire land and erect houses, on behalf and at the expense of those councils; and
(c) to make provisions consequential upon, or ancillary to, certain of the matters aforesaid.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Captain BOURNE: I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman, as I understand he wishes to take this Bill on Friday, when the text of the Bill will be available to Members'?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Arthur Greenwood): I understand that it will be available early to-morrow afternoon.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by Mr. Greenwood, Mr. William Adamson, Mr. Johnston, Miss Lawrence and Mr. Westwood.

HOUSING (RURAL AUTHORITIES) BILL,

"to enable further assistance to be given to rural housing authorities in regard to the provision of houses in agricultural parishes in England and in rural areas in
Scotland for agricultural workers, and for persons whose economic condition is substantially the same as that of such workers, and in connection therewith to amend the provisions of Section three of the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1924, with respect to the rents of such houses."

Presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, and to be printed. [Bill 197.]

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (CLERKS) BILL [Lords].

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. SPEAKER: Before the House reads the Bill a Second time, I want to inform the House that I am in some doubt as to whether this is a suitable Bill to originate in another place owing to the amount of privilege entailed. I have
come to the conclusion that there is sufficient substance left in the Bill to allow it to proceed, and on this occasion it may be permitted to continue in this House, but it must not be drawn into a precedent.

Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned accordingly at Sixteen Minutes before Twelve o'Clock.